Monday, August 28, 2017

Krugman - the Fascist State of America


"F-S-A, F-S-A, F-S-A."  How long before that's heard at Trump rallies or tractor pulls or gatherings of white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right and Ku Klux Klan?

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, is finally ready to call it - the Fascist State of Amerika. He blames Trump of course and Trump's bigot-base but he reserves special condemnation for those Congressional Republicans who fail to stand against their rogue president, Trump's collaborators.


Let’s call things by their proper names here. Arpaio is, of course, a white supremacist. But he’s more than that. There’s a word for political regimes that round up members of minority groups and send them to concentration camps, while rejecting the rule of law: What Arpaio brought to Maricopa, and what the president of the United States has just endorsed, was fascism, American style. 

So how did we get to this point?

Trump’s motives are easy to understand. For one thing, Arpaio, with his racism and authoritarianism, really is his kind of guy. For another, the pardon is a signal to those who might be tempted to make deals with the special investigator as the Russia probe closes in on the White House: Don’t worry, I’ll protect you.
...

What makes it possible for someone like Trump to attain power and hold it is the acquiescence of people, both voters and politicians, who aren’t white supremacists, who sort-of kind-of believe in the rule of law, but are willing to go along with racists and lawbreakers if it seems to serve their interests.

There have been endless reports about the low-education white voters who went overwhelmingly for Trump last November. But he wouldn’t have made it over the top without millions of votes from well-educated Republicans who — despite the media’s orgy of false equivalence or worse (emails!) — had no excuse for not realizing what kind of man he was. For whatever reason, be it political tribalism or the desire for lower taxes, they voted for him anyway.

Given the powers we grant to the president, who in some ways is almost like an elected dictator, giving the office to someone likely to abuse that power invites catastrophe. The only real check comes from Congress, which retains the power to impeach; even the potential for impeachment can constrain a bad president. But Republicans control Congress; how many of them besides John McCain have offered full-throated denunciations of the Arpaio pardon?

The answer is, very few. Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, had a spokesman declare that he “does not agree with this decision” — not exactly a ringing statement. Yet Ryan did better than most of his colleagues, who have said nothing at all.


This bodes ill if, as seems all too likely, the Arpaio pardon is only the beginning: We may well be in the early stages of a constitutional crisis. Does anyone consider it unthinkable that Trump will fire Robert Mueller, and try to shut down investigations into his personal and political links to Russia? Does anyone have confidence that Republicans in Congress will do anything more than express mild disagreement with his actions if he does?

As I said, there’s a word for people who round up members of ethnic minorities and send them to concentration camps, or praise such actions. There’s also a word for people who, out of cowardice or self-interest, go along with such abuses: collaborators. How many such collaborators will there be? I’m afraid we’ll soon find out.




5 comments:

Lorne said...

"Does anyone consider it unthinkable that Trump will fire Robert Mueller, and try to shut down investigations into his personal and political links to Russia? Does anyone have confidence that Republicans in Congress will do anything more than express mild disagreement with his actions if he does?"

What was once unthinkable is now well within the realm of possibility, Mound, so the simple and resounding answer to both questions is an emphatic "No."

crf said...

I don't think T will need to fire Mueller. If any crimes were committed by Trump as President or during his campaign they are not clearly apparent right now (that is to say: they depend on what people on his campaign have heard and are willing to say to the FBI or congress. There is not enough hard evidence yet, just massive clouds of smoke. And why would anyone on Team Trump squeal?)

We will have to wait at least until the midterm elections. Only then will we know if voters really care about the stink around Trump and the Republicans. Unfortunately, all things being equal, you'd expect the Rs to increase their senate majority and keep the house (since more D than R controlled seats are up for election).

The Mound of Sound said...


The point you overlook, Chris, is that none of us has any means of discerning what Mueller and his team are investigating, what evidence they've amassed. All WE have to go by is what's in the public record. We and the media have no subpoena power, no grand jury, and, having worked both sides of that street, I can safely assume that no one in the media is accessing the volume of documents and other data that Mueller's team is reviewing.

Ben Burd said...

"For another, the pardon is a signal to those who might be tempted to make deals with the special investigator as the Russia probe closes in on the White House: Don’t worry, I’ll protect you."

This doesn't make sense the collaboraters will suffer the wrath and revenge of the Blowster. Anybody making deals will not get help the people who refuse to deal will.

Anonymous said...

It does make sense. Someone in Mueller's crosshairs faces two choices: 1) make a deal for a lighter sentence and roll over on Trump or 2) stay silent, don't implicate Trump and get a heavier sentence. In that situation, most people will opt for the first choice.

Trump's pardoning Arpaio reverses the weight of those choices. They now become 1) make a deal for a lighter sentence and roll over on Trump or 2) stay silent, don't implicate Trump and maybe get a pardon. Changes the complexion, doesn't it?

Cap