Why Donald Trump Pardoned Joe Arpaio - The New Yorker

Arpaio represents in miniature what President Trump would like to be more maximally - an authoritarian not constrained by the rule of law. 

Trump is likely a fan of Arpaio’s because Arapio is a fan of his—an early supporter who also went all in for birtherism, at one point sending members of a so-called Cold Case Posse to Hawaii to dig up something incriminating about Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

But more importantly, Arpaio represents in miniature what President Trump would like to be more maximally - an authoritarian not constrained by the rule of law.

Like Trump, Arpaio regards reporters, activists, and critics of his policies as personal enemies as well as enemies of the state. The Justice Department investigation found that his department had "engaged in a pattern or practice of retaliating against individuals for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech."

The DOJ investigation found that Arpaio had "arrested individuals without cause, filed meritless complaints against the political adversaries of Sheriff Arpaio, and initiated unfounded civil lawsuits and investigations against individuals critical of MCSO policies and practices."

As such, it is clear that Trump's pardon of Arpaio is an explicit endorsement of racial profiling and extralegal, vigilante policing.

The full article is available here

Gary Cohn, Trump’s Adviser, Said to Have Drafted Resignation Letter After Charlottesville - New York Times

The full article is available here

Historical Curator: Removing Confederate Statues Isn’t Erasing History - Sojourner's Magazine

Trump's line of reasoning is confused. It conflates history with commemoration and brackets the Founding Fathers with the Confederate leadership. And here, Trump is also prizing the aesthetics of public space over the duties of building a more perfect union.

Confederate symbols have become central to an increasingly ugly debate over what America is really about. That process — from The Dukes of Hazzard to David Duke — has made Confederate statues into idols in the biblical sense: objects of intense, cultic affection for those who worship the vision and prejudices they represent.

My own work as a curator and historical researcher has led me to realize what these statues truly represent to their communities - divisive symbols that mean as much to racists today as they did in the past. 

Many people who don’t study this sort of thing for a living may feel things are moving too quickly, and as such we can fall prey to common "straw man" arguments: “First Confederate statues, then what?” and “We shouldn’t erase history.”

Trump's tweets bemoaning the removal of Confederate monuments as "erasing history" are based on conflation and false equivalency. He — and this line of reasoning — is confused. It conflates history with commemoration and brackets the Founding Fathers with the Confederate leadership. 

And here, Trump is also prizing the aesthetics of public space over the duties of building a more perfect union. America’s parks and roundabouts will be just as pretty without Confederate monuments.

The full article is available here

I warned of right-wing violence in 2009. Republicans objected. I was right. - Daryl Johnson

Since 2008, the body count from numerous acts of violent right-wing terrorism continued to rise steadily with very little media interest, political discussion or concern from our national leaders. 

Eight years ago, I warned of a singular threat — the resurgence of right-wing extremist activity and associated violence in the United States as a result of the 2008 presidential election, the financial crisis and the stock market crash. My intelligence report, meant only for law enforcement, was leaked by conservative media.

A political backlash ensued because of an objection to the label “right-wing extremism.” The report also rightly pointed out that returning military veterans may be targeted for recruitment by extremists. Republican lawmakers demanded then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano rescind my report. The American Legion formally requested an apology to veterans. Some in Congress called for me to be fired. Amid the turmoil, my warning went unheeded by Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security caved to the political pressure: Work related to violent right-wing extremism was halted. Law enforcement training also stopped. My unit was disbanded.

And since 2008, the body count from numerous acts of violent right-wing terrorism continued to rise steadily with very little media interest, political discussion or concern from our national leaders.

The mere existence of so many heavily armed citizens filled with hate and anger toward various elements of American society is troubling enough in its own right. They number in the hundreds of thousands. More troubling is the violent convergence now underway within right-wing extremist movements.

Largely under the media radar, disaffected extremist groups with long histories of squabbling have been independently pooling resources, some even infiltrating our government through the outreach efforts of right-wing extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriff’s and Peace Officers Association.

More recently, the renewed debates over Confederate monuments, same-sex marriage and Black Lives Matter has reinvigorated alt-right extremists to mobilize toward a more radical fringe element capable of violent action at any moment. Of further concern, a new generation of “charismatic leaders” within the white supremacist movement has emerged after Trump’s election, creating an opportunity for disparate groups to unite under one banner.

Trump’s endorsement of the border wall, the travel ban, mass deportations of illegal immigrants — these ideas were touted on white supremacist message boards merely 10 years ago. Now they’re being put forth as official U.S. policy. Such controversial plans have placated white supremacists and anti-government extremists and will draw still more sympathetic individuals toward these extremist causes along with the sort of violent acts that too often follow, like Charlottesville.

The full article is available here

Black Lives Matter Is Not A Hate Group - Southern Poverty Law Center

Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. The perception that it is racist illustrates the problem of our society as a whole still not accepting that racial injustice remains pervasive. And, unfortunately, the fact that surveys reveal that a majority of white people tend to see race as a zero-sum game may actually impede progress.

Generally speaking, hate groups are, by our definition, those that vilify entire groups of people based on immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Federal law takes a similar approach.

There’s no doubt that some protesters who claim the mantle of Black Lives Matter have said offensive things, like the chant “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” that was heard at one rally.

However, we have heard nothing remotely comparable to bigotry from the founders and most prominent leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement and nothing at all to suggest that the bulk of the demonstrators hold supremacist or black separatist views.

Thousands of white people across America – indeed, people of all races – have marched in solidarity with African Americans during BLM marches, as is clear from the group’s website.

The movement’s leaders also have condemned violence.

Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. The perception that it is racist illustrates the problem of our society as a whole still not accepting that racial injustice remains pervasive. And, unfortunately, the fact that surveys reveal that a majority of white people tend to see race as a zero-sum game may actually impede progress.

The full article is available here

Amateur Online Vigilantism Is NOT How We Should Combat Right Wing Hate - Jeff Wiersma

Online vigilantism may temporarily satiate our need to feel like we've done something to combat forces of hate, but the object of vigilantism's threats and verbal abuse is still a human being. No human being should be subjected to threats and abuse. And aren't threats and verbal abuse precisely what right wing hate groups direct at minorities, those of different religion traditions, and those who stand against hateful rhetoric?

I heard this story on NPR last evening ...

"In the aftermath of the white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville, Va., some people took to Twitter and shared photos of people who allegedly were at the march. The idea was to identify who they were and shame them. But identifying someone from a photo can be tricky — and people managed to make at least one mistake."

The victim of this mistake was Kyle Quinn, a University of Arkansas assistant professor. When someone incorrectly identified him as a participant in last weekend's right wing hate rally in Charlottesville, his email and Twitter account and were flooded with people cursing at him, threatening him and his wife.

On Saturday night, someone tweeted out the couple's home address. The couple immediately got law enforcement involved. This is reminiscent of the incident in 2013 when the New York Post falsely identified two men in a photograph as suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing.

In our mass media age it's easier than ever for such mistakes to happen, and the consequences are exponentially broader in scope than a scarlet letter or the proverbial mob with pitch forks.

But let's think beyond the fact that these were instances of mistaken identity.

Even if self-appointed online vigilantes properly identify someone involved in something criminal or hateful, what productive result does threatening and verbally abusing them achieve? This kind of activity strays well beyond the bounds of valid criticism of someone for their policies or actions that is part of constructive democratic engagement. In short, it is bullying.

Online vigilantism may temporarily satiate our need to feel like we've done something to combat forces of hate, but the object of vigilantism's threats and verbal abuse is still a human being. No human being should be subjected to threats and abuse. And aren't threats and verbal abuse precisely what right wing hate groups direct at minorities, those of different religion traditions, and those who stand against hateful rhetoric?

How does dehumanizing someone work in any way to solve the problem of that person's dehumanization of the people they hate?

Trump's "Both Sides" Assessment of Charlottesville: Marginally Accurate, Mostly Wrong - Jeff Wiersma

Trump is for some reason reluctant to identify hate groups as being the causal agent of the problem, instead resorting to "What Aboutism."

At an impromptu press conference Tuesday at Trump Tower, President Trump suggested that white supremacists and counter demonstrators were both to blame for the deadly violence that broke out in Charlottesville, Virginia over the weekend.

Trump's not wrong that the violence committed by a small fraction of the counter-protesters is a problem. Any pacifist would agree and many have already cited such tactics as both unethical and ultimately counterproductive.

What was striking, however, was that he couldn't even articulate that clearly without throwing in a completely random "fake news" epithet at the reporters gathered at the press conference.

The press conference leaves 3 takeaways.

1. Trump is for some reason reluctant to identify hate groups as being the causal agent of the problem, instead resorting to "What Aboutism." He didn't mention that the torch-carrying neo-Nazis encircled a church where clergy were praying on Friday night. He didn't mention that on Saturday, the same clergy peacefully marched in direct, nonviolent protest against machine-gun toting neo-Nazis.

2. Trump's "What Aboutism" only reinforces the need for those protesting against neo-Nazi's to remain nonviolent.  Had the small fraction of counter-protesters that used violence in Charlottesville INSTEAD behaved like the rest of their compatriots who used nonviolent direct action, Trump wouldn't had have any incidents to use for his equivocation.

3. Trump once again looked inept as president. He appears unable to articulate basic statements about basic truths that are held about democratic society by a vast majority of U.S. citizens. He has thus far lacked the appropriate seriousness and care in his wording for crisis situations such as the death of a demonstrator in Charlottesville. He appears to have little impulse control and an inability to consistently act presidential.

This leaves one to seriously question whether he is at all qualified for the job and whether or not he is fundamentally ill-suited for what it requires. In this instance and others, he has appeared to be in way over his head.

Fighting Hate With Assertive Nonviolence - Jeff Wiersma

As a society, we've endured other times when the forces of hatred and violence have reared their heads.  We have emerged as a more just, progressive, and egalitarian society on the other side of those times due to the work of nonviolent activists. 

In response to the Neo-nazi/KKK/White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville last weekend, there has been a lot of justifiable, visceral anger from those who criticize and oppose hatred and racism.

Once news broke that a White Supremacist had intentionally driven his car into a crowd of anti-racism demonstrators - killing one person - the outrage heated up exponentially.

I will gladly count myself among those who feel righteous anger at those who advocate hatred and feel that the use of violent force in pursuit of their racist beliefs is justified. No one has ever had to guess what my opinion is about racism, demagogues who peddle it, and domestic right wing terrorists.

That being said, I've seen some responses that don't sit well with me. Among them would be statements like "punch nazis," "smash fascists," and "we need to treat fascists like we did in World War II," the implication of course being that we should kill them.

I too have the same instinctual, emotional reaction of "these domestic terrorists should get a taste of their own medicine."  But there are many reasons why I won't join the chorus of voices advocating retaliatory violence.

Some of those reasons are purely strategic.

If MLK's work in the Civil Rights Movement should have taught those of us who advocate for progressive reform anything, it should be that not retaliating violently gives your side the moral high ground. Ghandi, Cesar Chavez, and Desmond Tutu all similarly understood and utilized assertive nonviolent protest.

There are 3 practical reasons why nonviolent direction action is the only strategy worth pursuing.

1. Violent retaliation only plays into the dismissive caricatures of "thugs" and "terrorists" that those all-too-eager to smear protestors routinely attempt to utilize. This propaganda false flat when it is leveled against nonviolent protesters.
2. It may sound crass at first blush, but in the era of mass media, optics matter. In the 1960's when average US citizens saw peaceful civil rights activists being attacked with dogs, police batons, fire hoses, and bombs on the evening news, the Civil Rights Movement had effectively won the battle for the public's hearts and minds.
3. Not retaliating violently interrupts the cycle of violence and prevents the continued downward spiraling of society. If the desired result of opposing hate and violence is to prevent it from occurring in the future, nonviolent direction action is the tool of choice. The only purpose that retaliating violently serves is to vent frustration. Though seemingly cathartic in the short term, it serves no long term strategic purpose. 

Other reasons that I oppose retaliating in violence are ethical.

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. One of the reasons I am a pacifist is because I see the use of violence as necessarily immoral. How can one claim to have ethical integrity if one's response to violence that is clearly wrong is itself violent? How would one's actions be any different than those of the forces of hate?
2. Dehumanization is always wrong. Committing violence against someone else is only possible when a victim is seen as being something other than a co-equal member of the human race. Violence is necessarily the result of a victim first having been dehumanized in the eyes of their attacker. By retaliating violently, would not one be guilty of the exact same wrong that the forces of hatred and oppression are guilty of - namely seeing another person as being less than fully human?
   
   Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists are 100% wrong in their beliefs and their rhetoric is divisive and dangerous.  At the same time, they are still human beings.  They are certainly hateful and abusive, but they are still humans - and therefore inherently deserving of a basic level of respect and decency.  

As a society, we've endured other times when the forces of hatred and violence have reared their heads.  We have emerged as more just, progressive, and egalitarian society on the other side of those times due to the work of nonviolent activists.  These ordinary people had the courage and moral fiber to directly and assertively oppose the forces of extraordinary evil and darkness.  Their's is the example we should look to and emulate.

Maybe Trump Isn't Lying? Washington Post Opinion Page

The key question with all of President Trump's inconsistencies and self-contradictions is this: Is he lying or is he unable to separate what he wants to believe and what exists, literally, in front of his eyes?

Instead of lying, what if Trump sincerely believes all of his unsubstantiated claims?

When he makes statements that are promptly and easily proven to be non-factual, could it be that he wasn't able to discern that they weren't true?

When he denies saying something, what if he honestly cannot recall statements that come back to haunt him?

This gives one pause when one considers the global consequences of the decisions that a president makes as commander in chief.

The key question with all of President Trump's inconsistencies and self-contradictions is this: Is he lying or is he unable to separate what he wants to believe and what exists, literally, in front of his eyes?

The 1st makes him morally unfit, and was the basis upon which many principled conservatives refused to vote for him. The 2nd means we have a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen.

The full article is available here