Michael Gerson – immigrationcourtside.com

🇺🇸 SANE, COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE WHO STOOD AGAINST GOP’S EMBRACE OF TRUMPISM, HATE, LIES, GONE FAR, FAR TOO SOON — Michael Gerson (1964 – 2022)

Here’s Karen Tumulty’s moving and heartfelt tribute to her colleague from today’s WashPost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/michael-gerson-faith-america-better/

One of the biblical injunctions sometimes cited by Michael Gerson, who died Thursday at the age of 58 after a long battle with cancer, comes from the New Testament book of Colossians: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

That advice works not only for Christian believers such as he was, but also in the sometimes brutal political world in which he made his mark. He was a presidential speechwriter whose own words were, indeed, singularly seasoned and notably full of grace. For the past 15 years, he enriched the pages of this newspaper as a columnist for the Opinions section.

Michael Gerson from 2013: Saying goodbye to my child, the youngster

But civility, as Mike also noted, does not preclude tough-mindedness. Nor should it be mistaken for a lack of principles or perspective. His own were rooted in the faith that fueled and defined his involvement with politics, and he was scorching in his assessment of his fellow evangelicals when theirs took what he saw as a more cynical turn. In a September essay, he wrote these supposedly conservative Christians “have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue. In the place of integrity, the Trump movement has elevated a warped kind of authenticity — the authenticity of unfiltered abuse, imperious ignorance, untamed egotism and reflexive bigotry.”

“This,” Mike wrote, “is inconsistent with Christianity by any orthodox measure.”

Mike and I were colleagues and friends whose paths crossed pretty regularly. One place we spent time together was at semiannual conferences in Florida known as the Faith Angle Forum, where people gather to discuss religion and politics.

It was during one of those meetings in 2014 that, for the first and only time, I saw Mike get angry — really angry.

Follow Karen Tumulty’s opinions

Follow

Add

I was seated next to him for a session on religious conflict and the future of the Middle East, in which one of the speakers was Elliott Abrams, a fellow George W. Bush White House veteran who had served as deputy national security adviser for Middle East policy.

“It used to annoy me enormously when President Bush, for whom I was working, would say Islam is a religion of peace,” Abrams said, “because the real response to that is ‘Where is your theology degree from?’ ”

As Abrams continued along those lines — at one point claiming the “average American” was justified in thinking “this is crap … because all these people who are doing beheadings are Muslims” — I could feel Mike grow tense in the chair next to me. He waited his turn to be called upon, and then he confronted his former colleague.

“We praise Islam, and every president from now on will praise Islam on religious holidays because there are millions of peaceful citizens who hold this view,” Mike said. “It’s also a theologically sophisticated view, as opposed to what you’re arguing … every tradition, religious tradition, has forces of tribalism and violence in its history, background, of theology, and every religious tradition has resources of respect for the other.”

He added: “That is a great American tradition that we’ve done with every religious tradition that comes to the United States, included them as part of a national enterprise and praised them for their strongly held religious views and emphasized those portions that are most compatible with those ideals.”

As deep as his own Christian religious beliefs were, Mike was tolerant, accepting, even admiring of those who prayed differently. And while he was by and large a social conservative, Mike knew that not every question involving faith and truth could be resolved along the bright battle lines of the culture wars, or literally be set in scripture.

He celebrated gay pride month and argued that our scientific understanding of the genetic basis of sexual orientation has come a long way since the Apostle Paul’s time. But he also believed that religious institutions, including schools and charities, should have leeway to shape their own standards.

And Mike was open about the times in his life when he had his own doubts about what God had in mind for him. In 2019, he spoke frankly and publicly about being hospitalized for depression, delivering a powerful sermon at the National Cathedral and then a column for The Post.

A few days earlier, Mike and I had lunch. The speechwriter who had written so many words for others told me he was nervous about baring himself so publicly, and he asked if I would read a draft. He also confided that he had been living in a shadow where, at times, he wondered whether those who meant the most to him would be better off — unburdened — if he weren’t around.

In his sermon, he put it this way: “I suspect that there are people here today — and I include myself — who are stalked by sadness, or stalked by cancer, or stalked by anger. We are afraid of the mortality that is knit into our bones. We experience unearned suffering, or give unreturned love, or cry useless tears. And many of us eventually grow weary of ourselves — tired of our own sour company.”

Mike combined his lived faith with his gift for expression to offer a hand to others — showing that they are not alone in the dark. “Even when strength fails, there is perseverance,” he said in his sermon. “And even when perseverance fails, there is hope. And even when hope fails, there is love. And love never fails.”

Now, his unearned suffering has ended, and those he touched, including many who never met him in person, will so deeply miss Michael Gerson’s company. His grace was a blessing, and we need it more than ever.

*********************

Go the above link for pictures and a selective compendium of Mike’s writings.

Mike was a voice for what modern American conservatism could and should have been: “a conservatism of the common good that argues that we need to orient our policies towards people that might not even vote for us.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2022/11/17/michael-gerson-speechwriter-post-dies/

I enjoyed reading Mike’s thoughtful, well-expressed, views in the WashPost, even when I disagreed with him. In particular, I agreed with his call-out of “false Christians:” Evangelicals who aligned themselves with the most un-Christian President in history and his vile “secular theology” of hate, lies, racism, selfishness, cruelty, and degradation of humanity.

Mike will be missed.

PWS

11-18-22

👍🏼🇺🇸MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: EXPOSING THE GOP’S COWARDLY ANTI-DEMOCRACY TRAITORS🤮🏴‍☠️☠️: CRUZ, HAWLEY, JOHNSON, MCCARTHY, ET AL🦹🏿‍♂️👎🏻 — “They have demonstrated their unfitness for office and called their own patriotism into question.“

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/let-the-anti-constitutional-republicans-reveal-themselves/2021/01/04/d3fafee0-4eb6-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

Opinion by Michael Gerson

January 4 at 2:32 PM ET

The great virtue of President Trump’s smoking subversion tape is that it clarifies the goals of all concerned.

The president’s stated objective is not to expose abuses in the electoral system. It is to pressure the Georgia secretary of state into manipulating the electoral system to squeeze out 11,780 additional votes — Trump specifies the exact number — in his favor. His cynical, delusional justifications are beside the point. He would say anything — invent any lie, allege any conspiracy, defame any opponent, spread any discredited rumor — to perpetuate his power.

This, in turn, illuminates the motives of his congressional enablers. In light of Trump’s clarifying call, the term “enablers” now seems too weak. When Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and their GOP colleagues try to disrupt and overturn a free and fair election, they are no longer just allies of a subversive; they become instruments of subversion. They not only help a liar; they become liars. They not only empower conspiracy theories; they join a conspiracy against American democracy. They not only excuse institutional arson; they set fire to the Constitution and dance around the flame.

Their pathetic motivations no longer matter. Some are simple cowards, frightened by angry people wearing red hats. Are we supposed to indulge their cravenness out of pity? Are we supposed to sympathize with people who want to keep their jobs at the cost of their country? Others eventually want the angry people in red hats to support their political ambitions. Are we supposed to humor people who seek the presidency by spitting on the institution of the presidency? Are we supposed make allowances for a selfishness so comprehensive that it eclipses duty, loyalty and love of country?

We are witnessing what happens when treacherous politicians run in packs. A solitary betrayal of the constitutional order by a member of Congress is a source of shame and, perhaps, a cause for expulsion. When 100 and more Republicans join hands and betray the constitutional order, it is a populist cause. They gain the confidence, even the thrill, of shared disloyalty. But their oath of office — in every single case — has been dishonored. They have demonstrated their unfitness for office and called their own patriotism into question.

So maybe it is for the best that they stand up and be counted. Maybe it is best for Americans to know who will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” — and who will not. By all means, let’s engrave their names into a marble slab — a roll call of those who failed the most important test of self-government in our lifetimes. There are a lot of monuments honoring bravery. Let’s have one dedicated to abject cowardice.

. . . .

It is fortunate for the country that Trump is a clownish figure. In his subversion tape, he ricochets between ominous threats and pathetic lunacy. He is not capable of an organized thought, much less an organized coup. Any revolution with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood in the vanguard is likely to end in the joke bin of history.

And yet: Trump and his congressional implementers have purposely placed a virus in the public order. A significant portion of the country has expressed support for the triumph of anger over institutions. These are potential recruits for anarchy. Trump, Hawley, Cruz and the others may be laying the path for a rougher beast slouching toward Washington. They are shredding the careful work of America’s founders. And they deserve nothing but contempt.

*********************

Read Michael’s full op-ed at the link.

Evil clowns🤡, cowards🤮, traitors🏴‍☠️, all of them! American needs an opposition party with some integrity. But, the hopes of getting one out of the debris of today’s anti-democracy, corrupt GOP seems pretty slim. The majority of us are going to have to figure out a way to move forward into the future even with this ballast dragging us down. Hopefully, it’s not “mission impossible.”

Biden and Harris are much smarter, more capable, and better qualified than Trump & Pence. But they can’t do it alone. They are going to need lots of help from the majority of us who still believe in our national democracy and are willing to stand up for it. (The “New Due Process Army” for one).🇺🇸

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

PWS

01-05-21

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: Trump Is Without Morality, Human Decency, Integrity, or Intelligence — Just Why Is This Vile Racist Who Is The Wrong Man For Our Time Still In Office & Threatening The Safety & Security of Every American?☠️🤮⚰️👎🏻🏴‍☠️

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-trump-ignored-bounties-on-us-soldiers-this-represents-a-new-level-of-debasement/2020/06/29/4901633e-ba36-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html

. . . .

Discerning a hierarchy of depravity among Trump’s provocations is not easy. His increasingly strident racism is complicating America’s reckoning with current injustices and grave historical crimes. His politically motivated sabotage of essential public health measures has likely cost thousands of lives. But there is something uniquely debased about a commander in chief who receives the salutes of soldiers while his administration does nothing about credible information on a plot to kill them.

And that is what the Trump administration seems to have done. If, as reported by multiple news sources, the White House was informed in March that Russian intelligence units were placing bounties on the heads of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, then the administration’s silence and inaction have been a form of permission.

The president’s claim of ignorance is not credible. This act of aggression would be a major escalation by a strategic rival. If the United States received intelligence about the bounties, and if response options were considered at a high level within the White House, there is simply no way the president and his senior staff would have been kept in the dark. It is information directly pursuant to Trump’s function as commander in chief.

. . . .

**************

Read the rest of Michael’s article at the link.

Sadly, Michael, the answer to the question I posed above is “the modern GOP.”

You really appear to be a decent human being and a courageous writer. How did you ever fall in with such a disreputable gang as the GOP?

Anyway, glad you finally have seen the light. My parents were Republicans. But, to state the obvious, this isn’t your parents’ (or at least my parents’) GOP. Apparently, not yours either. Which is a good thing — at least a start.

PWS

07-01-20

“BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” — Michael Gerson @ WashPost Says Evidence Proves Trump’s “Deadly Negligence” In Face of Pandemic!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/13/trumps-deadly-negligence-is-now-demonstrated-beyond-reasonable-doubt/

Michael Gerson writes in the WashPost:

Those who complain about the media’s relentless focus on President Trump during a pandemic have yet to internalize the horrendous reality of his pandemic response: Trump’s failures of leadership and character have increased the death toll and continue to threaten lives.

For me, that is a difficult sentence to write. Having spent time in the executive branch, I realize how complicated presidential decisions can be. America’s chief executives are often forced to make momentous choices, based on scant information, under the pressure of a ticking clock. It is easier to attack such decisions than to make them.

But the fact of Trump’s deadly negligence is now demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Detailed investigative articles in The Post and New York Times have established that there were six weeks of denial and dithering between a credible warning about the virus and decisive action by the president. It is now evident that Trump:

• ignored early intelligence reports of a possible pandemic;
• delayed the ramp up of practical preparations;
• was often more focused on political considerations, on the news cycle and on stock market performance than on epidemiological reality;
• deceptively played down what he knew to be a rising threat;
• coddled China when it should have been confronted;
• instinctively distrusted experts and seemed unable to absorb simple information and sound advice;
• lashed out at aides who took the crisis seriously;
• shifted reluctantly and belatedly from a strategy of containment to mitigation;
• is strangely obsessed with unproven treatments for the novel coronavirus; and
• has systemically lied about the promptness of his own response.

These accounts reveal a White House staffed by incompetent loyalists, distracted by turnover and riven by feuds. A White House carefully pruned and shaped to resemble the chaos in Trump’s mind.

[Full coverage of the coronavirus pandemic]

I urge you to read the articles themselves. In this case, it is a duty of informed citizenship. Americans need to understand the epic smallness of our president in times that demanded something more.

The tension between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony S. Fauci and President Trump has been simmering for weeks. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

All this is bad enough. But our interest, unfortunately, should not be merely forensic. Trump draws bitterness and resentment out of his experience of the world. He does not draw lessons or wisdom. And he remains just as dangerous to public health on the back side of the curve as he was on the front.

. . . .

******************

Read the complete op-ed at the link.

“Deadly negligence,” “ malicious incompetence,” “criminal recklessness” — call it what you will, there is more than ample proof that Trump is unqualified in every imaginable way for the office he holds.

Of course, Trump will remain a danger to our national health, safety, and welfare. He has neither the capacity for nor interest in anything beyond himself.

PWS

04-14-20

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST HAS SOME VERY BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA: The GOP Now Has Two Major Cohorts: Bigots & Cowards Who Won’t Stand Up To Them!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sure-not-all-republicans-hate-outsiders-but-many-defer-to-the-hater-in-chief/2019/12/12/6bb61b58-1d16-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

By

Michael Gerson

Columnist

Dec. 12, 2019 at 3:36 p.m. EST

Certain questions haunt many of us who care about the nature and future of the Republican Party. Is the GOP as it currently appears — defined by white identity and excited by cruelty and exclusion — really the way it has always been? Does Trumpism represent a hostile takeover of Republicanism or its natural outworking?A recent study by political scientists Lilliana Mason, Julie Wronski and John V. Kane sheds some interesting light on these matters. They compare a Democracy Fund voter survey conducted in 2011 with a survey of the same voters done in 2017. And they analyze the factors in the 2011 group that predict current approval for the Democratic Party, for the Republican Party and for President Trump.

Mason, Wronski and Kane found that support for the Democratic Party is associated with warmer feelings toward African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and LGBT people. This type of “in-group love” is what you’d expect. “Put simply,” said the authors, “when you like the people who make up the party, you like the party.”

The results concerning the GOP were more mixed, but similar. Warmer opinions about whites and Christians in 2011 predicted later support for the GOP — the Republican version of “in-group love.” But hostility toward African Americans and Hispanics did not drive future Republican support (though negative feelings toward Muslims and LGBT people did have limited predictive value).

Support for Trump, in contrast, was strongly associated with “out-group hatred” of African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims and LGBT people. “In every case, the people who felt hostile towards Democratic groups in 2011 are most likely to be Trump supporters today. The same cannot be said of Republican partisans.”

What to make of these distinctions? “In-group love” of whites and Christians for other whites and Christians is hardly a noble political motivation. “Love your white neighbor as yourself” doesn’t have quite the same moral ring to it. What Mason calls the “social sorting” of the parties — in which partisan identities are closely associated with ideological, racial and cultural identities — is a source of deep and damaging polarization.

Yet it comes as a relief to some of us that Republican partisans and Trump supporters can be distinguished from each other at all. And “in-group love” is certainly better than an “out-group hatred” of anyone who looks and thinks differently.

There is evidence, it appears, that the party of George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney was not merely the party of Trump in waiting. “Trump support,” say the authors, “is uniquely dependent upon out-group hatred.” This is not a normal sort of partisanship. It is partisanship supercharged by prejudice and contempt. This fits the experience of elected Republicans I have interviewed, many of whom no longer recognize the political party they rose within. The players and attitudes in many states and districts have shifted. Something different and disturbing is taking place.

Trump did not create this out-group animosity; he exploited it, organized it and sent it into political battle. “Even in the 2016 Republican presidential primary,” the authors note, “out-group hatred predicted support for Trump, but not for [Ted] Cruz, [Marco] Rubio or [John] Kasich.” They go on: “We tend to think of partisans as being generally intolerant of outsiders, but our findings suggest that Trump supporters are unique in terms of their out-group hatred.”

This offers the comfort of knowing that the whole GOP is not united and defined by contempt for outsiders. But the indictment of the Republican non-haters is still quite damning. In every way that matters politically, they have accepted the leadership of a president and a movement that cultivate hatred as a strategy. The GOP non-haters — say, business conservatives and social conservatives — have deferred to the hater in chief. They have (for the most part) held his coat, carried his water and licked his boots — which are not easy to do simultaneously.

All of which raises another vexing question: Which is worse, bigotry or cowardice in the face of bigotry?

Whatever the answer, we should prepare ourselves for an especially ugly and destructive 2020 presidential election. Trump seems to believe, with some justification, that the cultivation of anger against outsiders won him the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016. We should expect more of the same, and worse. The racism, misogyny and dehumanization — the assault on migrants, Muslims and refugees — have only begun. And those who enable it are equally responsible for it.

********************************************************

The GOP’s toxic combination of outright bigots and sleazy dishonest bootlickers willing to cover for corruption and bigotry has never been more on display than in this week’s “fact free, value free defense” of the indefensible before the House Judiciary. And, as I mentioned previously this week, it also explains why neo-Nazi White Nationalist hate monger Stephen Miller will be in the White House as long as Trump is, unless he falls out of favor with Trump for some reason unrelated to his odious views.

It also illustrates what I’ve been saying about the recent performance of the higher level Federal Courts. Trump’s war on migrants, non-Christian religions, women, the poor, journalists, lawyers, political opponents, and individuals of color has nothing to do with “normal legal issues.” It’s an existential struggle by the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for Trump and don’t agree with his authoritarian White Nationalism to preserve our republic against a fascist-style authoritarian regime that is running roughshod over our Constitution, our laws, and ethical and moral norms that have developed over many years. Those who won’t stand up and defend our republic and our individual rights are enabling the bigoted destroyers. There really is no “middle ground” in this battle.

To put it in Michael’s terms: “The racism, misogyny and dehumanization — the assault on migrants, Muslims and refugees — have only begun. And those [sitting on the Supreme Court and the Federal Appellate Courts] who enable it are equally responsible for it.”

Innocent folks are being harmed and abused every day, while the judicial enablers are drawing their pay!

Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-13-19

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: THE “TRULY TRUMPIAN MEN” SYMBOLIZE THE GOP’S DESCENT INTO WHITE NATIONALISM AND DISHONESTY: “Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-miller-and-jim-jordan-give-us-a-taste-of-the-truly-trumpian-man/2019/11/14/e187e8b8-0725-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

Across the years of a presidential administration, the churn of politics and policy brings certain men and women to the top of U.S. politics. The past few days have demonstrated the paths to preferment and influence in the Trump years.

First is the case of Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Trump and the administration’s unofficial liaison to the alt-right world.

Miller is best known as the prime mover behind the Muslim travel ban and the main opponent of any political compromise involving compassion for Dream Act “dreamers.” Now, with the release of a trove of emails sent to Breitbart writers and editors in 2015 and 2016 (soon before Miller became a Trump administration official), we get a glimpse of Miller’s inspirations and motivations. In response to the massacre of nine black churchgoers by a white nationalist in 2015, Miller was offended that Amazon removed merchandise featuring the Confederate flag and was concerned about the vandalization of Confederate monuments. Miller encouraged attention at Breitbart to a “white genocide”-themed novel, featuring sexualized violence by refugees. He focused on crime and terrorism by nonwhites as the basis for draconian immigration restrictions. He complained about the “ridiculous statue of liberty myth” and mocked the “national religion” of “diversity.” He recommended and forwarded stories from a range of alt-right sources.

All this is evidence of a man marinated in prejudice. In most presidential administrations, a person with such opinions would be shown the White House exit. But most of Miller’s views — tenderness for the Confederacy, the exaggerated fear of interracial crime, the targeting of refugees for calumny and contempt — have been embraced publicly by the president. Trump could not fire his alt-right alter ego without indicting himself. Miller is safe in the shelter of his boss’s bigotry.

Second, there is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the tireless, tendentious, often bellowing chief defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings.

Jordan is not, of course, alone in his heroic sycophancy. GOP Reps. Devin Nunes (Calif.), Mark Meadows (N.C.) and others try to equal him. Together they update Alexander Pope: Fools rush in where Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani fear to tread.

But Jordan has mastered the art of talking utter rubbish in tones of utter conviction. His version of the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry? Rather than committing corruption, Trump was fighting corruption. Military assistance was suspended, in Jordan’s telling, while the president was deciding whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “legit” in his determination to oppose corruption. When Trump found that Zelensky was the “real deal,” the aid was released.

This is a bold but flimsy lie, of the type Trump has made common. Why, in this scenario, would Trump try to secure specific commitments from Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to examine Trump’s conspiracy theory about Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election? Are we supposed to believe that Trump employed these as random, theoretical examples of corruption that a worthy, crime-fighting leader would root out? And was the release of U.S. aid just two days after Congress was notified about the whistleblower report a coincidence as well?

Jordan asks us not to accept additional facts but to live in a substitute reality. Almost everyone who participated in these events — both professional staff and political appointees — has affirmed that Trump was employing leverage to secure his political objectives. It is the plain meaning of the reconstructed transcript of Trump’s call to Zelensky.

But none of this matters to Jordan or his colleagues. Consistency and coherence are beside the point. Their objective is not to convince the country; it is to maintain and motivate the base, and thus avoid Trump’s conviction in the Senate. The purpose is not to offer and answer arguments but to give partisans an alternative narrative. And the measure of Jordan’s success is not even the political health of his party (which is suffering from its association with Trump); it is the demonstrated fidelity to a single man.

The elevation of Trump to the presidency has given prominence to a certain kind of follower and permission for a certain set of social values. Bolsheviks once talked of creating the New Socialist Man. Miller and Jordan are giving us a taste of the Truly Trumpian Man — guided by bigotry, seized by conspiracy theories, dismissive of facts and truth, indifferent to ethics, contemptuous of institutional norms and ruthlessly dedicated to the success of a demagogue.

Every day of Trump’s term continues the moral deconstruction of the Republican Party and brings the further debasement of American politics.

*******************************

Let’s hear that again:

Every day of Trump’s term continues the moral deconstruction of the Republican Party and brings the further debasement of American politics.

Yup!

This also confirms what we already knew about Miller’s “role model,” his former boss and White Nationalist nativist “mentor’ Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions. He’s someone who should have been disowned by the GOP ages ago and who has demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt” his total unfitness too hold public office!

PWS

11-15-19

NIKKI HALEY: How Ambitious Daughter Of Immigrants Became A Shill For White Nationalist, Xenophobic, Misogynistic Regime & Its Corrupt Leader — “All she had to do was to ignore her conscience, betray her colleagues and injure her country. A small price to pay for such a brilliant political future.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-officials-believe-trump-is-a-danger-to-the-country-they-have-a-duty-to-say-so/2019/11/11/0541dc64-04bf-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

Michael Gerson writes in the WashPost:

Nikki Haley used to be known as the other member of President Trump’s Cabinet who left with an intact reputation (in addition to former defense secretary Jim Mattis). In an administration more influenced by Recep Tayyip Erdogan than Ronald Reagan, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations often provided a more traditional rhetorical take on American foreign policy. Haley seemed genuinely to care about human rights and democracy, and to somehow get away with displaying such caring in public. Her confidence in national principles marked her as such a freakish exception that some speculated she might be the rogue, anti-Trump Trump official who wrote an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times.

But Trump’s corruption still pulls at a distance. Clearly convinced that Trumpism is here to stay, Haley has publicly turned against other officials in the administration who saw the president as a dangerous fool. She recounts an hour-long meeting with then-Chief of Staff John F. Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who “confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country.” The conspirators (in Haley’s telling) considered it a life-and-death matter. “This was how high the stakes were, he and Kelly told me. We are doing the best we can do to save the country, they said. We need you to work with us and help us do it.”

Haley, by her own account, refused to help. “Instead of saying that to me, they should’ve been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan,” she now explains. “It should’ve been, ‘Go tell the president what your differences are, and quit if you don’t like what he’s doing.’ But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing.”

Here Haley is confusing two categories. If a Cabinet member has a policy objection of sufficient seriousness, he or she should take that concern to the president. If the president then chooses against their position — and if implementing the decision would amount to a violation of conscience — an official should resign. Staying in office to undermine, say, a law or war you disapprove of would be a disturbing arrogation of presidential authority.

But there is an equally important moral priority to consider: If you are a national security official working for a malignant, infantile, impulsive, authoritarian wannabe, you need to stay in your job as long as you can to mitigate whatever damage you can — before the mad king tires of your sanity and fires you.

This paradox is one tragic outcome of Trumpism. It is generally a bad and dangerous idea for appointed officials to put their judgment above an elected official’s. And yet it would have been irresponsible for Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson and others not to follow their own judgments in cases where an incompetent, delusional or corrupt president was threatening the national interest.

Consider the case of former White House counsel Donald McGahn. According to the Mueller report, McGahn complained to then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus that Trump was trying to get him to “do crazy s–t.” McGahn (thankfully) told investigators he ignored presidential orders he took to be illegal.

Or consider a negative illustration. When it came to pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, the only morally mature adults in the room (and on the phone) were quite junior in rank. They expressed their concerns upward. But those above them — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — had learned the lesson about officials fired for an excess of conscience. They apparently looked the other way as a friendly country was squeezed for political reasons.

On the whole, I’m glad that responsible officials such as Kelly and Mattis stayed as long as they did to prevent damage to the country. But I also think they have a moral obligation to come out before the 2020 election and say what they know about Trump’s unfitness. If Biden is the nominee, they might even get together and endorse him. But, in any case, if they believe Trump is a danger to the national interest, they eventually have a duty to say something. Saving the country requires no less.

As for Haley, she has now signaled to Trump Republicans that she was not a part of the “deep state,” thus clearing away a barrier to ambition. All she had to do was to ignore her conscience, betray her colleagues and injure her country. A small price to pay for such a brilliant political future.

******************************

Haley’s ridiculously disingenuous performance on Today when grilled by Savannah Guthrie about the facts was worthy of her new role model, “Don the Con.”

Although you wouldn’t know it from the sycophantic Haley, political appointees, including Cabinet Members, actually take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S., not the President. They are also first and foremost public servants paid by the People, not personal retainers of Trump as Haley, Barr, Pompeo, and others have functioned. I’d actually put Kelly and Tillerson in that category too; they certainly made a mess out of things at DHS and State, respectively, by putting the President’s xenophobic political policies before the law and the public interest.

And, if they in fact thought the President was endangering the U.S., they have kept it a secret after leaving. Compare these tawdry performances with those of the career public servants who have spoken out about Trump’s misdeeds even at the likely cost of their careers. And, unlike the stream of political appointees who have left in various stages of disgrace, they probably don’t have lucrative private sector jobs and/or fat book contracts awaiting them.

Expect Haley to “repackage herself” as a “powerful woman” and eventually as a Presidential candidate. She should be met with the same contempt as Kirstjen Nielsen and the few other GOP women who penetrated the Trump GOP’s “White Men Only Club” only to choose pandering to its corrupt leader over the welfare of our nation and advancement of humanity.

PWS

11-12-19

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: Trump’s Disgraceful White Nationalism Is Un-American! — “But the most alarming spectacle is this: an American president who doesn’t understand the meaning of America.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-cant-even-get-american-nationalism-right/2019/09/30/be903b0e-e3a2-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

Michael Gerson writes in the WashPost:

One of the puzzling aspects of President Trump’s hyper-nationalism is its consistent denigration of the nation itself.

In a 2017 Oval Office conversation among Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the president did more than boast that the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. Trump also, according to a recent report in The Post, appeared to White House officials to be “forgiving Russia for an attack that had been designed to help elect him,” while noting that the United States engaged in such election manipulation itself.

Citing one former administration official, the Post article added: “The president and his top aides seemed not to understand the difference between Voice of America, a U.S.-supported news organization that airs in foreign countries, with Russian efforts to persuade American voters by surreptitiously planting ads in social media.”

This is not the first time Trump has asserted a moral equivalence between American and Russian roles in the world. In his 2017 Super Bowl day interview with Fox News, he dismissed criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “killer” by musing: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think, our country’s so innocent?”

If such a statement were made by an Ivy League college professor, conservatives would have had all their suspicions about the anti-American tendencies of tenured radicals confirmed. Yet Republicans seem to have no problem rallying around a politician who looks at the Russian-American relationship and sees equal and opposite amorality.

The assertion of moral equivalence between the Voice of America and Russian troll farms is particularly ignorant and galling. The VOA does actual newsgathering and journalism in countries without a free press. The Russians deliver lies on social media to encourage division and hatred among Americans. Trump seems incapable of understanding the difference.

For all his flag waving, Trump seems to lack the instinct for patriotism. It is one thing — as the president does with regularity — to throw people who work for him under the bus. This displays the absence of downward loyalty. But in his 2017 meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, Trump effectively threw his country under the bus — endorsing the Russian perception of American hypocrisy on election tampering. This indicates a lack of upward loyalty. It doesn’t seem to matter to Trump that American “meddling” in foreign elections generally consists of promoting regular and fair elections, encouraging the protection of minority rights and speaking up for press freedom.

None of these objectives holds much appeal or urgency for Trump. He calls for the renewal of nationalism, but in a manner that has little to do with our national values. He wants us to take pride in blood and soil rather than in a set of universal ideals. His calls for loyalty are based on geography not morality. He urges us to love America because it is powerful, and because it is ours, not because it is good.

In this sense, Trump seeks to normalize American nationalism — to make it more like the Russian or Chinese varieties. He invariably defines national goals in terms of exercising military dominance, or controlling access to resources, or maintaining national sovereignty, or achieving trade surpluses. And he seems to view this as an expression of realism about the nature of power. America may claim to be a new order for the ages, but we kill people too. We interfere with elections too.Trump appears to find this kind of moral relativism liberating. A world without rules and ideals is a world without limits on his instincts and whims. This may be why he has offered praise for the leadership styles of Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping, while generally ignoring democratic activists in Moscow or Hong Kong. Trump would rather view himself as the embodiment of the national will, instead of as the steward of American ideals. His sympathies lie with the powerful because he imagines himself in their company.

Despite this pretense, Trump manages to look small and silly on the global stage. He has been tricked and exploited again and again by North Korea’s murderous man-child. At the Helsinki summit last year, standing next to Putin, Trump was cringing and pathetic. When it comes to foreign policy, he is not sitting at the adult table.

But the most alarming spectacle is this: an American president who doesn’t understand the meaning of America.

***********************

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Michael. My only question: What happened to the rest of your GOP buddies who have joined with the forces of racism, xenophobia, and cowardice to destroy our nation from the inside? Seems like something pernicious in both your GOP and your conservative movement that have betrayed America by supporting the neo-Nazi authoritarian Trump.

Trump’s GOP is nothing new. It’s an extension of a party and a conservative movement that has always relied on a racially motivated, morally questionable “base.” Rather than having the guts to reject racism and false patriotism, the GOP has let their lust for rule against the best interests of the nation take over.

When you finally acknowledge your own role in creating Trump and his atrocities against America, you will have more credibility!

But, until then, I agree completely that we have an un-American President who gives patriotism a bad name and degrades our nation with every day he remains in the high office for which he is so supremely unqualified and undeserving. The GOP actually has the power to join with the Democrats in removing Trump — this clear menace to America — from office now! Instead, they defend the indefensible with more lies and smears of the REAL patriots and those who do understand the “meaning of America!”

PWS

10-02-19

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: TRUMP USES “BULLY PULPIT” TO BULLY CHILDREN! — Some Damage Likely Irreparable! — “The separation of children from their parents as a deterrent is a human rights abuse.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-president-is-the-bully-of-children/2018/05/14/178c941c-579c-11e8-8836-a4a123c359ab_story.html?utm_term=.68038e376ea8

How does President Trump act when he feels on top of the economic and diplomatic world? As his influence solidifies within the GOP? As his poll numbers tick upward?

If a recent Cabinet meeting tirade is any indication, political security has not translated into magnanimity. According to news reports, Trump spent 30 minutes dressing down his homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, for insufficient zeal in closing the southern border to illegal immigrants. One consistent source of tension between the two has been Trump’s desire to use family separation as a deterrent against illegal crossings.

Trump unbound is increasingly impatient with the excessive humanity of some of his own staff. This is not a problem he has, to be clear, with his chief of staff. Asked if family separation was cruel and heartless, John F. Kelly replied, “I wouldn’t put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States.” He described the family-separation policy as a “tough deterrent.”

No, pulling crying children from the arms of their parents is not heartless at all. They will be taken care of, “or whatever.” For Kelly and Trump, the defining characteristic of these migrants is their illegality, not their personhood or their dignity. This is the definition of dehumanization.

A few points. First, the debate over a border wall is a policy matter. The separation of children from their parents as a deterrent is a human rights abuse. And the Trump administration, at its highest levels, cannot tell the difference.

As usual, Trump and his team are operating in a complete vacuum of historical knowledge. Family separation is not new to America. It was essential to the practice of chattel slavery. If enslaved people were truly property, they could not also be husbands and wives, or constitute true families. If those emotional and moral bonds were conceded as valid, slavery’s whole structure of dehumanization would crumble. Which is exactly why abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe emphasized the cruel separation of families in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

Inhuman immigration enforcement is not the moral or legal equivalent of slavery. But a nation with this history should take particular care when contemplating family separation as official policy. Few human beings would treat other human beings in this manner. Which is exactly why Trump and Kelly must present “illegals” as lesser beings defined by their criminality.

Second, if the deterrence of crime is the only standard we employ in immigration enforcement, what is the limiting principle? Why stop at the separation of families? Why not put able-bodied illegal immigrant children to work in salt mines? Why not plant land mines at the border? Why not strafe illegal immigrants from attack helicopters?

The answer, of course, is that America, by definition, has a higher standard than legality. Our country’s most basic commitment — and its limiting principle — is universal human rights and dignity. This does not prevent the government from enforcing reasonable immigration laws. It does forbid the government from inhumanity in the enforcement of immigration laws. And there is no definition of inhumanity that does not include the intentional separation of parents from their children.

The fragmentation of families can be a tragic byproduct of the criminal-justice system. Many American children must visit a parent in prison. But if the breakup of families were proposed as a tough deterrent for crime — as a policy and a punishment — it would rightly be seen as a betrayal of American values. As it would be at our borders.

Third, Trump’s policy of family separation illustrates the swift downward spiral of demagoguery. In 2012, citizen Trump criticized Mitt Romney’s “crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal. It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. . . . He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.” By his candidacy announcement tour in 2015, Trump had discovered the visceral appeal of presenting Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers. Now he feels comfortable proposing the punishment of children and the purposeful destruction of immigrant families as a deterrent. And he feels comfortable because the Republican Party has surrendered, step by step, to his agenda of dehumanization.

Other American presidents have used their accumulated political capital for humanitarian goals. Trump is a leader who, as he grows politically stronger, is using his power to attack and exploit the weak and vulnerable. America’s president is the bullier of children.

*******************************

Gerson is “right on” in his analysis of the truly reprehensible program of de-humanization of migrants (and indeed of all people of color) being carried on by the Trumpsters.

Gotta ask the question though:

Michael, My Man, where was your “spot on” sense of morality, humanity, and values during the during the Bush II Administration when, as I remember it, you were part of the “spin team” trying to put a favorable gloss on some of the immoral, and sometimes illegal, acts of the Bush II Administration?

On the other hand, I’d have to admit to serving Administrations and private clients whose values I did not always share. So, it’s probably better to attain some moral clarity later in life than not at all.

And, perhaps, having once defended the questionable, marginally defensible, or the indefensible is part of the overall “learning curve” in public service. Upon my “first retirement” from Government, I remember being told by one senior DOJ lawyer that he would miss my “unparalleled ability to provide rational explanations for some of the essentially irrational policies” of my “client.”

The main problem with the Trumpsters is that they appear to have neither second thoughts nor moral qualms about most of the immoral and sometimes illegal actions and positions they are advancing. In the long run, that’s got to be bad for our country and the world. Lack of judgement, courage, and values appear to be the qualifications for service at the higher levels of the Trump administration.

PWS

05-15-18

MICHAEL GERSON @ WASHPOST: ICE IS GETTING DOWN IN THE GUTTER WITH TRUMP – Why Would We Tolerate Either A President Or A USG Agency Who Glories In & Gloats About “Mean & Nasty” Treatment Of Other Human Beings? — By Accepting Trump’s & ICE’s Inappropriate Conduct, We Diminish Ourselves As A Nation & As Human Beings!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ice-has-become-trumps-personal-bullying-squad/2018/04/23/5197541e-472d-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html?utm_term=.692cc352c144

Gerson writes:

The attitude of President Trump toward federal law enforcement is, to put it mildly, mixed. The FBI refused to bend to his will. So the special counsel team is composed of “hardened Democrats” engaged in a “WITCH HUNT.” The FBI was, according to Trump, too preoccupied with the Russia investigation to prevent the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The agency’s reputation “is in Tatters — worst in History!”

But Immigration and Customs Enforcement has passed the loyalty test. ICE’s enforcement surge “is merely the keeping of my campaign promise,” the president tweeted. Referring to ICE acting director Thomas Homan, Trump said, “Somebody said the other day, they saw him on television. . . . ‘He looks very nasty, he looks very mean.’ I said, ‘That’s what I’m looking for!’ ”

This is territory more familiar in political systems of personal rule. The agency that defies the ruler must be discredited. The agency that does his bidding is viewed as a kind of Praetorian Guard.

Most of the professionals working in ICE would surely deny this characterization, pointing to an important legal role independent from any individual president. But they need to understand that their work is now being conflated with Trump’s nativism.

ICE’s 40 percent increase in arrests within the United States after Trump took office is now closely associated with the president’s political priorities. His sweeping executive orders on immigration broadened the focus of enforcement beyond serious threats to public order. Arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions have spiked. Routine “check-ins” with ICE officials can end with handcuffs and deportation. “Sanctuary cities” — a recurring presidential political obsession — are being targeted with additional personnel. Hundreds of children have been removed from parents seeking asylum and detained separately — compounding their terrible ordeal of persecution and flight. ICE recently announced a new policy that makes it easier to detain pregnant women. Asylum seekers have often been denied “humanitarian parole” while their cases are decided, effectively jailing them without due process.

Officials of the agency insist that their nonpolitical mandate hasn’t changed. But Homan has praised the Trump administration for taking “the handcuffs off law enforcement.” Whatever their intention, ICE agents are being used by the president to send a message of callousness. And they are tying themselves to Trump’s political fortunes in the process.

The job performed by ICE is essential to American security, and not easy. Agents must prevent some truly dangerous people from entering and staying in the country — gang members, drug dealers and terrorists. But it is also their job to deal with asylum seekers — men, women and children fleeing from gangs, targeted for death by drug cartels and oppressed by terrorist states. Some of the worst people in the world, and some of the most sympathetic people in the world, are processed by immigration officials. It takes care and discernment to make this distinction.

ICE is not an agency famous for its care and discernment. In releasing an immigration activist detained by ICE early this year, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest said, “It ought not to be — and it has never before been — that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust. . . . We are not that country.”

Accusations of abuse in ICE custody are numerous and serious, and they preexisted the Trump era. An investigation by ProPublica and the Philadelphia Inquirer reported cases of racial profiling, fabricated evidence and warrantless searches — all given little scrutiny by overwhelmed immigration courts. During the past few years, there have been hundreds of accusations of sexual abuse, racial slurs, abusive strip searches and verbal harassment in ICE jails, prisons and detention centers. For an institution that claims “zero tolerance” for such practices, it seems to get a lot of serious complaints. One asylum seeker, Gretta Soto Moreno, has called the facilities worse than normal prisons because ICE “feels like it can treat immigrants any kind of way.”

This is the bitter fruit of dehumanization — in a facility, in a system, in a country. It is unclear whether Trump would even regard such a reputation as undesirable. He has effectively given permission for bullying.

This is an issue ripe for more rigorous congressional oversight — even an independent commission to investigate charges of physical and sexual abuse in the ICE system. But this would require a critical mass of elected Republicans to give a damn about the rights and dignity of migrants. It is a distant dream.

*************************************

Dehumanization of migrants, who are among the most human of all among us, is certainly one of the most insidious aspects of the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen,/Homan regime. When we allow individuals like these who have both forgotten their proper roles in a democratic republic and arrogantly checked their humanity at the door, we essentially dehumanize ourselves.

Not surprisingly, migrants grow in moral stature as we shrink, individually and collectively. And the restrictionist (occasionally, as in the case of folks like Rep Steve King (R-IA) “neo-Nazi”) wing of the GOP is certainly a prime enabler of this reprehensible conduct. As even some GOP commentators have noted, there is a disturbing “empathy and humanity gap” evident when GOP politicos speak in dismissive and derogatory terms about migrants.

Only time will tell how soon we will be able to remove these unworthy public officials from the positions they now hold and replace them with responsible public servants who treat others with dignity, respect, humanity, and reasonableness. But, the speed and decisiveness with which we act will say much about America’s future prospects as a nation.

PWS

04-25-18

“AYATOLLAH ROY” Preaches A Gospel Of Hate & Bigotry That Jesus Would Never Regognize

Michael Gerson writes in the Washington Post:

“The strongest objection to Moore’s hardness and harshness is theological. On the consistent evidence of Jesus’ ministry, what public attitude did he condemn the most? He stood against people who talked constantly of the law, who thought they were especially virtuous, who enjoyed scolding people, who judged others without tenderness and understanding. He was at constant war with the self-righteous and took the side of the social outcasts they condemned.

Now we see the return of the Pharisee.”

*****************************************

Read the rest of Gerson’s “spot on” op ed at the link.

Jeff Sessions are you listening?

PWS

09-29-17

Michael Gerson Describes “Trumpism!”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-hard-messy-options-for-destroying-trumpism/2017/06/19/d6483a56-5517-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.2718b2e3055d

In a Washington Post op-ed, Gerson writes:

“Nearly 150 days into the Trump era, no non-delusional conservative can be happy with the direction of events or pleased with the options going forward.

President Trump is remarkably unpopular, particularly with the young (among whom his approval is underwater by a remarkable 48 percentage points in one poll). And the reasons have little to do with elitism or media bias.

Trump has been ruled by compulsions, obsessions and vindictiveness, expressed nearly daily on Twitter. He has demonstrated an egotism that borders on solipsism. His political skills as president have been close to nonexistent. His White House is divided, incompetent and chaotic, and key administration jobs remain unfilled. His legislative agenda has gone nowhere. He has told constant, childish, refuted, uncorrected lies, and demanded and habituated deception among his underlings. He has humiliated and undercut his staff while requiring and rewarding flattery. He has promoted self-serving conspiracy theories. He has displayed pathetic, even frightening, ignorance on policy matters foreign and domestic. He has inflicted his ethically challenged associates on the nation. He is dead to the poetry of language and to the nobility of the political enterprise, viewing politics as conquest rather than as service.

Trump has made consistent appeals to prejudice based on religion and ethnicity, and associated the Republican Party with bias. He has stoked tribal hostilities. He has carelessly fractured our national unity. He has attempted to undermine respect for any institution that opposes or limits him — be it the responsible press, the courts or the intelligence community. He has invited criminal investigation through his secrecy and carelessness. He has publicly attempted to intimidate law enforcement. He has systematically alarmed our allies and given comfort to authoritarians. He promised to emancipate the world from American moral leadership — and has kept that pledge.

For many Republicans and conservatives, there is apparently no last straw, with offenses mounting bale by bale. The argument goes: Trump is still superior to Democratic rule — which would deliver apocalyptic harm — and thus anything that hurts Trump is bad for the republic. He is the general, so shut up and salute. What, after all, is the conservative endgame other than Trump’s success?

This is the recommendation of sycophancy based on hysteria. At some point, hope for a new and improved Trump deteriorates into unreason. The idea that an alliance with Trump will end anywhere but disaster is a delusion. Both individuals and parties have long-term interests that are served by integrity, honor and sanity. Both individuals and the Republican Party are being corrupted and stained by their embrace of Trump. The endgame of accommodation is to be morally and politically discredited. Those committed to this approach warn of national decline — and are practically assisting it. They warn of decadence — and provide refreshments at the orgy.

So what is the proper objective for Republicans and conservatives? It is the defeat of Trumpism, preferably without the destruction of the GOP itself. And how does that happen?”

*******************************************************

Other than that, Trump’s done a really fine job.

I highly recommend reading the conclusion to Gerson’s column by clicking the above link.

PWS

06-20-17

Here’s Karen Tumulty’s moving and heartfelt tribute to her colleague from today’s WashPost:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! ⚖️🗽

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Every day of Trump’s term continues the moral deconstruction of the Republican Party and brings the further debasement of American politics.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: