A Washington Post Editorial: Undermining Democratic Values

Since beginning this blog, I have been concentrating primarily on the danger that Donald Trump and his presidency present to our democracy.  It has seemed to me that amidst the ongoing tidal wave of the President’s coarse, demeaning and outrageous comments, commentators have been distracted from adequately exploring his deeper danger to the democratic process.  

That seems to be changing.  In the past several days an editorial (which I’ll examine today) and an opinion column (which I’ll review in the next post) have appeared in the Washington Post focusing on this specific threat.    

The Post editorial suggests that Trump’s “toxic influence” goes well beyond the “awful things” he says and does; more importantly, the danger “lies in how he undermines democratic values in less spectacular ways that go relatively unchallenged.”  The editorial deserves to be extensively quoted:

● Following the publication of an unflattering book, Mr. Trump insisted that the country should have tougher libel laws that would make it easier for powerful public figures such as himself to sue writers who say things that are “false” — that is, to gag critics the president does not like.

● The president continued his paranoid smear campaign against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, suggesting that the FBI influenced the 2016 presidential election to his detriment and accusing a senior FBI investigator of committing treason for privately sending anti-Trump texts. He also implied that law enforcement scrutiny should focus on a political opponent, Hillary Clinton. The president’s assault on a nonpartisan law enforcement agency and his insistence on prosecuting political opponents suggest he does not understand the differences between advanced democracies and authoritarian states. So, too, did his contention that the “Court System” is “broken and unfair,” following a ruling he did not like.

● With similar contempt for facts and fairness, the president called the Russia probes “the single greatest Witch Hunt in American history.” The inquiries include a formal law enforcement investigation based on ample evidence of Russian involvement in the 2016 election … [that] is is compelling. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump suggested that Republicans should “take control,” presumably to end the probes before they have fully accounted for the actions of a hostile foreign power and any Americans who may have helped. Congressional inquiries and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the hostile acts of an unfriendly foreign foe should be insulated from political pressure; instead, the president is demanding the pressure be ramped up.

● Mr. Trump’s obsession with the Russian probes also was manifested in his suggestion that a U.S. senator, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), broke the law by releasing non-classified testimony at the request of the witness who delivered it to lawmakers. Mr. Trump’s real objection was that the testimony undermined a conspiratorial narrative he had been building about the FBI’s Russia investigation.

While I have previously written in this blog about these issues (with the exception of the last), it is, of course, much more important that the mainstream press is, on the one-year anniversary of Trump’s inauguration, highlighting them and their implications for our democracy.

Prosecute Comey?

In most circumstances, expressing a political opinion or making a political suggestion is healthy for democracy. But it’s different for a president of the United State, as evidenced by the international reaction to President Trump’s “shithole” remark last week. While that comment was a crude expression of the President’s racism that further demeaned both his reputation and America’s place in the world community, other remarks and tweets have been much more dangerous to the fragile web that supports our democracy. The President’s tweets and his spokesperson’s comments encouraging the investigation and prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey are important examples.

In September of 2017, President Trump’s press secretary Sarah Sanders suggested that the US Department of Justice should “should certainly look at” prosecuting James Comey, the former director of the FBI, for (unsubstantiated) false testimony to Congress. Trump himself hinted that he had tapes implicating Comey. Then last week, the President tweeted that the Justice Department must “finally act … on Comey.”

While acknowledging that it wasn’t up to the President to decide, his press secretary nevertheless detailed a list of Comey’s violations that should warrant investigation. Although we have become accustomed to the President’s intervening in other legal cases (see my post here), it’s important to reiterate how inappropriate these interventions are and their risk to democracy.

The comments about Comey, however, go even deeper.

The role of the FBI is to investigate crime within the country. Because some crimes have political implications, it’s crucial that the FBI remain above even a hint of partisanship. Trump’s response to the FBI’s (appropriate) investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and then its (appropriate) investigation of Russian interference in the election, however, has politicized both the FBIs and Comey’s role. (Trump has called behavior by a senior FBI investigator “treason.”)

The President has, to say the least, a personal interest in the outcome, making his intervention even more unacceptable. This politicization has spread to other parts of the Republican Party, threatening to derail both Senate and House investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The President fired Comey because of Comey’s initial investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible collusion in Russian interference in the election. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s appointment to continue the probe has led to concerns about Trump’s alleged use of his office to obstruct justice by firing Comey. Comey’s testimony will be essential in Mueller’s investigation, making the President’s push for Comey’s prosecution even more treacherous.

For the President to suggest legal action in a matter in which he is so intimately involved, crosses the line over his appropriate constitutional power.

A Washington Post editorial:

The president’s assault on a nonpartisan law enforcement agency and his insistence on prosecuting political opponents suggest he does not understand the differences between advanced democracies and authoritarian states.

In the United States, the government does not punish political adversaries through the legal system unless there is overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior. And even in these cases (eg Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate), politicians must be scrupulous in maintaining their non-partisanship.

President Trump’s impact on our democracy has been destructive. When he threatens political enemies with legal punishment or when he seeks to impact the behavior of law enforcement or the courts, he threatens the fragile web of tradition, law, and expectation that sustain our democracy.

Truth and Democracy

In many of my posts so far, I’ve written about President Trump’s disdain for truth.  From his insistence that the crowds at his inauguration were bigger than Obama’s to his claim that the recent tax bill contained “huge” breaks for the working and middle class, the President repeatedly offers lies in the face of documented truth.  The New York Times recently listed 108 unequivocal lies in the President’s first eight months

These lies are each bad enough individually.  They create misunderstandings, enforce the prejudices of his base, deny inconvenient science, and so on.  It’s hard to know whether Trump is completely divorced from reality, incapable of determining the truth even for himself, simply pursuing agendas that would make no sense if one knew the truth, or, more likely, some shifting combination of all three.  The larger question, however, is: What happens to a country when there is no-agreed upon truth?  As William Raspberry has asked, “Can a democracy function without a commonly accepted chronicle of events and encyclopedia of knowledge?” 

Our democracy depends on our collective decision making in the face of multiple competing values and opinions. For instance, even if there were general recognition of the truth of climate change, there would still be irreconcilable differences in opinion about what should be done:

• Do nothing and assume humanity will acclimate to the new reality?  
• Do nothing and assume that future technology will solve the problem?  
• Invest heavily in renewable sources of energy without government regulation of carbon emissions?  
• Enforce government-mandated carbon pricing or emission limits?

In a pluralistic democracy these decisions require political wisdom, the ability to compromise, a modicum if trust in the wisdom of the whole and a willingness ultimately to accept even decisions you oppose. But what happens if there are no agreed-upon facts? What happens if there is no agreed-upon way to prove that global climate change is not just a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by a cabal of dishonest, self-interested scientists?

No, a democracy cannot function if we can’t agree on what constitutes truth or even on the possibility of determining the truth. Democracy cannot ultimately survive if the President can convince one-third of voters of “alternative facts” and hold democracy hostage to his version of the truth

So then the question becomes: Is American democracy strong enough to withstand a President with no regard for the truth, especially when no one from the ruling party is willing to hold him accountable, to insist on bringing the truth into debates about the most important topics confronting the government?

While the answer yet hangs in the balance, the recent elections in Virginia, Alabama, and New Jersey are hopeful signs. There is good reason for hope that this one man will not be allowed to destroy our most important national treasure.

The Attacks on Robert Mueller’s Investigation

In recent weeks, congressional Republicans and supporters have escalated their attacks on special investigator Robert S Mueller III, whose team is examining Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  These attacks are largely baseless and continue the strategy of undermining the investigation through distraction and empty accusation.  The two most recent examples are attacks on:

• Mueller’s recent acquisition from the General Services Administration of emails from the Trump transition team before his inauguration; and
• congressional discovery of texts that disparaged the President between two members of Mueller’s investigative teams.

The point I want to make in this post is that these diversionary attacks are less serious as threats to the investigation than as threats to American democracy. 

Before I get to that, here’s the background.  In May of this year, President Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey, thus decapitating the criminal investigation of the collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.  Trump later acknowledged that he fired Comey “because of this Russia thing.” In doing so, he opened himself to charges of obstruction of justice. 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein quickly appointed Mueller, a former head of the FBI, who was deeply respected by Democrats and Republicans alike, as a special counsel in order to continue the investigation.  The appointment specifically authorized Mueller to bring criminal charges if appropriate. 

Witch Hunt?

Since the discovery of the Russian involvement, President Trump has steadfastly dismissed any serious Russian meddling in the election despite the high confidence of the CIA, FBI, NSA and the Director of National Intelligence to the contrary.  He soon began criticizing Mueller’s handling of the investigation as a “witch hunt.”

Late last week, the President’s attorneys renewed the attack on Mueller for his “illegal” acquisition of Trump campaign emails.  Jennifer Rubin has thoroughly discredited the notion that emails on official government networks (“.gov”) have any expectation of privacy.

Even without reasonable basis, Fox News commentators piled on, calling the investigation “illegitimate” and “corrupt,” charging that Mueller had put the country “on the brink of becoming a banana republic.”  They compared the FBI to the Soviet KGB, suggesting that the FBI has become America’s secret police and should be shut down.
Coup d'État?

The drumbeat has grown louder with recent accusations of partisanship within Mueller’s investigation.  Here’s the story there:

In July, the FBI discovered text messages between one of Mueller’s lead investigators, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer no longer involved in the investigation.  Strzok and Page were in the midst of an extra-marital affair and (mistakenly) believed the texts personal and private.  Once Mueller discovered the texts, he immediately removed Strzok from the case.

Several weeks ago, however, in response to a congressional request, Mueller handed over to Congress text messages from the investigation, including those between Strzok and Page.

Republicans pounced, saying that Mueller’s investigation was tainted with “partisanship.”  Some suggested the need for a second special counsel.  Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said that Mueller “needs to clean house of partisans.”  “This bias is like an infection,” tweeted Republican representative, Matt Gaetz.  “It’s an incurable cancer that’s inoperable, and we’ve got to end this Mueller probe once and for all.”  “We are at risk of a coup d'état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected President of the United States,” said Gaetz.  Fox News commentators agreed. 

A Few Facts 

Regarding Mueller’s acquisition of the campaign emails, the most important thing to realize is that absolutely no evidence has been presented for wrongdoing; and independent experts have corroborated that Mueller acquired the emails properly.

Regarding Mueller’s acquisition of the campaign emails, the most important thing to realize is that absolutely no evidence has been presented for wrongdoing; and independent experts have corroborated that Mueller acquired the emails properly. 

In the Strzok case, there no evidence of bias in his professional work; the texts themselves do express strong personal political opinions, but they were personal, intended only for his lover, expressing only his private opinions.  Political opinions, however, do not usually disqualify one from unbiased legal investigation. 

It’s important to note again that, once Mueller became aware of the texts, he dismissed Strzok immediately.  This prompt, unequivocal action should dispel any suspicions of partisanship in the investigation.

Possible Republican Intentions

Since they have no reasonable basis, the attacks on Mueller are presumably preparatory, attempting to undermine in advance public perception of the investigation’s reliability. 

What might the attacks be preparing for?

First, since Trump believes he has the power to fire Mueller, it’s possible that the Republican attacks are preparing to justify just that.  I think this unlikely, however, for it would open the President to further charges of obstruction of justice and would and further compromise his dwindling public support.  In addition, several Republican senators have openly warned Trump against this option.  And Trump himself has been unusually consistent in denying his intention of fire Mueller, despite recurrent hints from his circle of advisors that it is in the works.

A second, more likely possibility is that these attacks are preparing to provide cover for congressional dismissal of the investigation.  Having paved the way for the public’s mistrust of Mueller and what he finds, Republicans would have greater freedom simply to ignore his findings and recommendations. 

A third purpose of these attacks is simply to distract from the entire issue.  Since this kind of distraction has been a recurring theme during the Trump presidency, I’ll examine it at greater length in a future post.

Danger to Democracy

Fundamental to a democracy is equality before the law.  Although frequently ignored in practice, the principle remains a basic public commitment.  Whether Trump has violated the law or not, the raw political power transparently engaged in preventing a legal determination seriously undermines confidence in our democracy. 

If our powerful elected officials are immune from wrongdoing, our democracy hangs by a thread.

Tribalism and Democracy

It’s a messy mix. Today’s Alabama Senate election holds up to our view the dirty underwear of politics: accusations of sexual misconduct and child abuse, unseemly disregard for basic morality in order ensure the success a political party, and yet deeper public disdain for the political process.

Roy Moore—the former Alabama chief justice twice removed from his seat for unconstitutional rulings—is the Republican candidate for the Alabama Senate seat to replace Jeff Sessions, who resigned to become US Attorney General. 

Moore has recently been credibly accused by Leigh Corfman of enticing her to his home when she was fourteen (and he thirty-two), removing first his and then her clothes down to their underwear, fondling her and then forcing her to fondle him.  Since then, a number of woman have come forward with complaints of Moore's sexual advances while they were teenagers.

Roy Moore does not by himself endanger American democracy; we’ve had sleazy candidates elected to national office before.  But Donald Trump does.  His endorsement and active role in Moore’s campaign is one more attack that further erodes America’s fragile confidence in our system of government.

For the purposes of this post, it’s not necessary to judge the truth or falsity of the accusations.  It’s enough to notice that neither President Trump nor the Republican leadership has denied them.  Most importantly, almost three-fourths of Americans expressing an opinion believe the accusers (although just over half of Alabama’s voters don’t).

The political pressure on the Republican Party, of course, is enormous.  Their hold on the Senate is tenuous, 52 – 48.  The Alabama Senate seat would ordinarily be safely Republican.  But because of the accusations against Moore, there is some chance that the Democratic candidate will win, which would endanger the Republican stranglehold on Supreme Court justice appointments and much else. 

It’s easy to understand that rank political considerations favor Trump’s intervention, which could well be decisive.  But it’s also important to recognize that over half of Americans will interpret the President’s support as condoning felony assault of a minor.  The President clearly believes that the electorate won’t care enough to punish him, itself an indication of the state of our democracy.

Columnist Dana Milbank has written in the Washington Post about tribalism, the loyalty one feels to one’s own group, the commitment to the welfare of that group over the welfare of the whole.  We all feel it to some degree, but most of us place limits on it.  The President’s peculiar brand of tribalism, however, demonstrates virtually no limits; at the very least it does not stop at the bounds of common morality.

As I’ve written earlier, democracy does not function without the people’s trust in government.  Today, less than twenty percent of Americans trust the government to do what is right “most of the time.”  When the President condones sexual abuse for the good of his political party, trust in government erodes even further, and Americans’ willingness to participate in the process—even to the extent of voting—erodes with it.  Even with their own party in power, less than thirty percent of Republicans trust the government.

One victory for democracy has been the mobilization of a strong anti-Trump political movement.  Millions who were previously inactive are participating.  The President has stirred thousands of Americans to become candidates for political office, a sign that many of us still believe in democratic governance.

In a few hours, we’ll know whom Alabamans have elected as their Senator.  Whether Moore wins or loses, President Trump has already landed another blow to our reeling democracy.  Yes, the democracy still holds, but I wonder how much more it can take.

If Science Doesn’t Give Us Truth, What Does?

Immediately on writing the title, I feel the need to equivocate. 

• Well, yes, occasionally science misinterprets the data … but it quickly catches itself.
• Well, no, science can’t prove anything; it’s all theory … that’s the nature of science. 
• Well, yes, some scientists are in the pay of big corporations … but it’s a minority and they are concentrated in a few industries, like pharmaceuticals, and their conclusions are still subject to peer-review.

The mere fact of my defensiveness around science tells us something scary about the decline of our country.  Any democracy requires its citizens to accept basic, well-known facts, especially those that impact governance.  If we can’t depend on science to set the basic boundaries of truth, what can we depend on?

And the answer at this time is, “Nothing.  Within today’s American culture there is no standard for truth.”

It’s not unusual for politicians to deny the inconvenient truths of science.  The most obvious and most dangerous example is an entire political party that denies the fact of human-induced climate change.  Another is that politicians still talk about evolution as an “unproven theory” for fear of offending their base.  And politicians still claim that vaccinations can cause autism or other serious illness despite overwhelming evidence against it.

But President Trump has taken science denial to a whole new level.  Most notoriously, he has withdrawn the US from the Paris Climate Accord, leaving us as the only UN member not signed on.  And that’s not all:

• The Administration has rolled back access to birth control, challenging the scientific consensus that birth control leads to a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies, to fewer teen pregnancies, and no increase in sexual activity among teens.
• Trump’s administration stopped requesting scientific evidence on methane emission from the oil and gas industry and suppressed a scientific report from inside one of his own agencies that was to be delivered to Congress.
• The Department of Treasury removed from their website an economic analysis that provided evidence that a corporate tax cut would not benefit workers more than owners of capital.

President Trump has gone out of his way to appoint as agency administrators precisely the people who’ve previously attacked those agencies for following scientific consensus.  For example, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt described himself – when serving as Oklahoma’s Attorney General and suing the EPA fourteen times – as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” 

As administrator of the agency, he removed from the EPA website critical scientific data about climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and arctic sea loss; in fact, he later eliminated the entire climate change section.  Pruitt also announced that, despite staff recommendations, he would not ban a pesticide that poses a clear risk to children, farm workers, and rural drinking water users.

In an unprecedented move Pruitt has prohibited all scientists who receive grant money from the EPA from serving on its science advisory board, thus barring the most qualified scientists in the country from the board.  While the agency touted this as a way to decrease conflicts of interest, Pruitt has not disqualified any scientists funded by industries the agency is tasked with regulating.   

Another Presidential nomination flying in the face of scientific consensus is that of former Texas governor Rick Perry to head the US Department of Energy.  Perry had previously called for abolishing the agency, which is responsible, among other things, for steering energy policy as it affects the climate.  Just this month, Perry said natural causes are likely the main driver of climate change.

And yet another example: Trump appointed Sam Clovis, a former talk show host and political science professor, as the chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The 2008 farm bill states that the person filling the post be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.”  Clovis is not a scientist at all, much less distinguished.  After a political uproar, Clovis resigned the position, but the President had already made his opinions clear.

Perhaps most compelling (but not surprising), the President has yet to fill the post of Presidential Science Advisor, which has now remained vacant far longer than in any other administration in the last forty-five years.

The practical consequences of each these particular actions are bad enough.  But perhaps more harmful to our polarized democracy is that the President is encouraging an atmosphere in which science is automatically suspect and has no more claim to truth than a neighbor’s anecdote or a random page on the Internet.  This leaves us with no standard for truth, so meaningful political debate becomes impossible and governing is left to whim.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said: “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”  Apparently, he was naïve.

A president who knowingly encourages such ideas and behavior makes even informed debate a relic of a lost past. 

And American democracy thereby loses one more toehold.