Trump and the Tides of History

I’ve been thinking about history, and what history can and cannot teach us about current events.

One thing history ought to teach us is that nations, politics, and the course of events are not just shaped by the plans laid by people in power. As often as not, the trajectory of history is shaped by how the people in power respond — or react — to events they hadn’t planned for.

Presidents more often than not are remembered for how they dealt with unexpected crises rather than how well they carried out their campaign promises. Are they able to adjust their thinking as situations demand, or do they remain stuck in their ideological playbooks — think Herbert Hoover’s inability to deal with the Depression. See also Peter Baker, Presidents Form Their Legacies in Crises.

Trump has been in a uniquely bad position since, in fact, he doesn’t even do plans. His only objective is his own glory. He has more or less lumbered through three exhausting years in the White House by taking credit for good news and blaming others for bad, whether he had a hand in events or not. He’s been sheltered from the consequences of his own actions, or inactions as the case may be, by congressional Republicans and the right-wing media infrastructure.

But now the nation has been hit by massive crises, and people are seeing for themselves that Trump is failing miserably to address them. He can’t adjust his thinking because he doesn’t think; he just reacts, and all of his reactions are either self-protecting or self-aggrandizing. He cannot put his emotional neediness aside to just do what is required any more than he is likely to master quantum physics or the title role in Verdi’s Otello.

And in this, he is showing us that the tides of events, and history, sometimes are too big to be subdued by propaganda and gaslighting.

Greg Sargent, this morning:

President Trump’s advisers are letting it be known that he is seriously considering a televised national address on race and national unity. When your paroxysms of laughter subside, consider the serious point here: This reveals just how badly Trump misread the politics of this moment, to a potentially fatal degree.

You know that if he does give such an address, it will consist of anodyne phrases strung together by his staff in no discernible order and clumsily read by Trump from a teleprompter in the weird sing-song tone he adopts when he’s trying to sound serious.  It will mean nothing and accomplish nothing, but the Trump campaign and its Republican enablers will claim he “addressed” racism, as if it were just a box that needed to be checked. And then Trump will prompty resume tweeting juvenile insults of everyone in the world who doesn’t adore him enough.

A typical view of Trump’s proposed address:

See Pretty Much No One Thinks It’s A Good Idea For Trump To Give A Speech On Racism And Unity. Nearly any other person who has served as POTUS in the nation’s history would have given such an address already. Indeed, presidential nominee Joe Biden has already given such an address. But Trump cannot rise to this moment because Trump is massively unsuited to be president at all. I doubt the man could competently manage a WalMart, to be honest. Yes he has owned a lot of businesses, many of which failed, but there’s no indication he has ever been all that hands-on in running any of them. All his life he’s just thrown his daddy’s money at walls to see if it sticks.

Back to Greg Sargent:

What’s been exposed is this: Trump simply will not, or cannot, operate out of any conception of what’s good for the country — the whole country. Faced with enormous crises, he has tried to pretend they don’t exist, or has tried gaslighting us into disbelieving our own eyes and ears about them, or has used them as occasions to demagogue and incite hatreds in ways he believes will help his reelection.

This takes us back to history. Trump and his team reacted to the protests that followed George’s Floyd’s killing as if it were still 1968. They assumed they coujld invoke “lawnorder” and call the protesters “thugs,” and the white voters of America would rally behind them. But that hasn’t worked this time. And even as the administration tentatively suggests that maybe Trump could address racism and national unity, administration officials continue to deny there is systemic racism in law enforcement. Which means Trump’s people can’t address racism and national unity, because they don’t know what those words mean.

And this is what happened when Trump learned that Mitt Romney marched with Black Lives Matter:

In fact, Romney’s approval numbers in Utah are looking pretty good — 56 percent approve, 42 percent disapprove, according to a recent poll. According to FiveThirtyEight, Trump nationwide is currently at 41.4 percent approve, 54.3 percent disapprove.

We’ve all heard that history repeats itself, but what does that mean, exactly? History does show us repeating patterns involving class, poverty, various forms of tribalism, greed, war, colonialism, etc. But at the same time, no nation, society or culture remains static for very long. Everything is always changing, even if in small and subtle ways. So while we’re dealing with many of the same issues as in 1968, it ain’t 1968 any more. A lot really has changed. In many ways, we’re all marching into a great unknown; the patterns of the past are not necessarily going to hold.

It’s too soon to say that Trump’s chances for re-election are dead — events may yet occur that change the current trajectory — but it appears they’re about to start circling the drain. Do see Jonathan Last at The Bulwark, The 2020 Cake Is (Almost) Baked.

See also Matt Yglesias, Joe Biden has a really big lead in the polls.

A Monday morning CNN poll showed Joe Biden with a staggering 14-point lead over President Trump as the electorate’s stated level of concern with “race relations” soars and the former vice president is seen as much better equipped to handle the issue.

Winning the popular vote by such a large margin would likely mean Democrats overperformed in battleground states and in places like Georgia, Iowa, and Texas that would put the Senate clearly in play.

And while the CNN poll is just one poll, and something of an outlier at that, there is now a very clear trend in national polling — Biden was winning before the outbreak of massive national protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death, and that lead has gotten bigger.

Maybe not 14 points bigger, but bigger than it was before and clearly larger than any lead Hillary Clinton ever held in the 2016 campaign.

Events are driving us all now. At this point the scope and depth of Trump’s incompetence and unfitness are too visible to hide, but where the tides are taking us is hard to say.

Gabriel Sherman writes at Vanity Fair that Trump has been calling people and prodding them to admit that the polls are all wrong.

“He’s asking people to agree with him that the polls are biased. But no one is telling him what he wants to hear,” said a Republican briefed on the calls. Republicans know how bad things are, but the party still believes sticking with Trump is the best bet for holding the Senate. Last week, Mitch McConnell told Republican senators that they couldn’t abandon Trump, according to a source. McConnell reminded Republicans that former New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte lost her 2016 reelection bid after breaking with Trump over the Access Hollywood video.

Hey Mitch — it ain’t 2016 any more, either.

U.S. President Donald Trump announces an agreement with Mexico on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the White House in Washington, U.S., August 27, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque – RC1D94FA7CB0

U.S. Military to Trump: We’re Not Your Monkeys

There are new reports that in a Monday morning Oval Office meeting, on the day of the Bible Stunt, Trump demanded the military put 10,000 active duty troops into the streets “immediately” to counter protests. AG Barr, SecDef Esper, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Milley talked Trump out of this by saying the governors could call National Guard instead. This brought about the inhinged conference call in which Trump yelled at state governors that they were “weak” and threatened to send federal troops if they refused to deploy the Guard. And then to prop up his he-man image, Trump engaged in the Bible stunt.

Talk of using federal troops against protesters has the military up in arms, so to speak. This is not to say the military is about to overthrow Trump in a coup; it is not. And it’s not to say that Trump doesn’t have loyal followers in uniform. But Trump has been put on notice by a significant portion of the brass that he can’t order the military to do anything he wants. The military willl obey a reasonable order, but not every order. The idea of ordering federal troops in U.S. against protesters was a bridge way too far.

But this isn’t the first time Trump and the military have butted heads. It’s a pattern, actually.

At the beginning of his administration, Trump treated the military as some kind of perk of office, like use of the company jet. Here is a Business Insider story from 2017

What has set military members off is Trump’s insistence on saying “my generals” and “my military,” which some say suggests a misguided sense of ownership over the country’s armed forces.

In the past, former military members have voiced their displeasure with Trump’s phrasing. Former Army Officer Mark Hertling recently told Business Insider he found Trump’s language “extremely offensive.”

“The US military belongs to the nation, not the president. We’re not his,” Hertling said. …

…One of the first instances came on Inauguration Day in January — at a luncheon just hours after being inaugurated — when Trump recognized Gens. James Mattis and John Kelly.

“I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe,” Trump said to members of Congress and other dignitaries, before saying to Mattis, “These are central casting. If I’m doing a movie, I pick you General.”

But “my” generals were always a bit cool about being cast as Trump’s trained monkeys, especially when Trump issued orders to them on Twitter. See a post I wrote in July 2017, Did the Joint Chiefs Just Diss Trump?

And it’s not just the brass. The Military Times has been reporting for a while that support for Trump among active-duty troops has been slipping; see stories from October 2018 and December 2019.

And then there was Trump’s repeated demands for a fancy eastern-European style military parade, which he sorta kinda got last year. Clearly, his goal was to surround himself with military glory. Service chiefs were expected to stand near Trump for public display; I assume they complied. He wanted the same thing this year, but the pandemic has spared us, somewhat. Trump has been pushing for a 4th of July parade in Washington; this weekend may have changed his mind. We’ll see.

Let us recall the flap over Edward Gallagher, the “freaking evil” renegade SEAL officer adopted by Trump as his personal military totem. In brief, the Navy wanted Gallagher disciplined; Trump interfered. This led to a convuluted mess, culiminating in Trump’s firing of the Secretary of the Navy. Trump began attacking the Pentagon itself as part of the “deep state” that was out to get him. There was much grumbling on many op ed pages about Trump’s undermining of military discipline and the code of justice.

In December 2018 Trump announced he wanted U.S. troops withdrawn from Syria, which is what inspired General Mattis to resign as Secretary of Defense. More recently there was the shameful episode in which Trump, apparently on a whim, told Turkish President Erdogan that invading northern Syria and slaughtering our allies, the Kurds, would be just peachy with the U.S. I suspect the brass was mortified about that.

I missed it at the time, but shortly after General Mattis announced his resignation,  Admiral James Stavridis (Ret.), a former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, published an op ed at Time titled Why Trump’s Generals Have Abandoned Ship.

In the cases of Generals H.R. McMasterJohn Kelly and, finally, James Mattis–all of whom I’ve counted as not just colleagues but also friends–the details of each individual departure vary somewhat. But the common theme is actually pretty simple: President Trump simply cannot be briefed, staffed, scheduled or organized in a manner that long-serving military personnel find effective.  …

… The President famously does not actually read the voluminous policy papers with which he is presented. From the perspective of a senior military mind, this would be akin to a car refusing to be gassed up. According to multiple reported accounts, Trump’s briefings have to be put in the simplest terms; the traditional complex military PowerPoint slides were anathema to him. The military presents its shared wisdom by detailing a traditional set of information: assumptions, existing conditions, courses of action, centers of gravity and, in the end, the ultimate three options suggested to the decisionmaker; the President prefers to go with his gut. This made for a continuous collision between the President and his generals, and the recent series of decisions-by-tweet (notably including the withdrawal from Syria) truly underscore the impossibility of molding the President’s approach.

See also Top Military Officers Unload on Trump in the November 2019 issue of The Atlantic.

So there has been tension building between Trump and “his” military. The brass hasn’t liked Trump very much for some time. Still, for the most part they were keeping quiet about a sitting president, until now.

After Gen. Jim Mattis’s rebuke of Trump published at The Atlantic, other retired officers felt freer to speak up. For example, eighty-nine former defense officials signed an open letter in WaPo, The military must never be used to violate constitutional rights.

Jacqueline Alemany at the Washington Post wrote,

Candidate Trump once said he gets his military advice from “watching the shows.” President Trump stocked his Cabinet with “my generals.” Now, the president is on the receiving end of a battering ram of criticism from some of those same military heavyweights he once bragged about as he vows to “dominate” those protesting racial injustice — comparing the commander in chief to a wannabe dictator whose actions are endangering the country.

Most recently, Gen. Colin Powell announced he would be voting for Joe Biden. Trump responded with one of his signature juvenile taunts.  See also Dismay and disappointment — A breach of sacred trust by Gen. Vincent K. Brooks (Ret.) at Military Times.

It’s true that most of the people we’ve heard from are retired, but I don’t think there’s any doubt they speak for a large majority of officers and for the Pentagon generally. Robert Burns of the Associated Press wrote yesterday,

Tensions between the White House and Pentagon have stretched to near a breaking point over President Donald Trump’s threat to use military force against street protests triggered by George Floyd’s death.

Friction in this relationship, historically, is not unusual. But in recent days, and for the second time in Trump’s term, it has raised a prospect of high-level resignations and the risk of lasting damage to the military’s reputation.

What are the implications of this development? Well, for one thing, it’s going to be harder for Trump to use the military as part of his re-election campaign. He does have a few trained monkeys like the disgraced Gallagher he can trot out at rallies and photo ops, but there may not be many uniformed generals or admirals willing to get their pictures taken with him now.

See also Franklin Foer, The Trump Regime Is Beginning to Topple, which is worth reading all the way through.

The most important theorist of nonviolent revolutions is the late political scientist Gene Sharp. … In Sharp’s taxonomy, the autocrat’s grasp on power depends entirely on the allegiance of the armed forces. When the armed forces withhold cooperation, the dictator is finished. Of course, the U.S. is far more democratic than the regimes Sharp studied and doesn’t fit his taxonomy neatly. But on Wednesday, the president’s very own secretary of defense explicitly rejected Trump’s threat to deploy active-duty military officers to American streets. It’s among the most striking instances of an official bucking a president in recent decades.

The examples of Serbia, Ukraine, and Tunisia show how even the subservient unexpectedly break from a leader once that leader is doomed to illegitimacy. And to an extent, the cycle of abandonment has already begun. Jim Mattis’s excoriation of his old boss prodded Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to echo his condemnation of the president. As each defector wins praise for moral courage, it incentivizes the next batch of defectors.

Even if the protests fizzle—and the parade of denunciations comes to an end—it’s worth pausing to marvel at the moment. Despite the divisions of the country, a majority of its people joined together in shared abhorrence of the president, at least for an instant. Sectors of society that studiously avoid politics broke with their reticence. In a dark era, when it seemed beyond the moral capacities of the nation, it mustered the will to disobey.

Last week Lee Drutman of FiveThirtyEight wrote that If Republicans Are Ever Going To Turn On Trump, This Might Be The Moment.

This is one of those rare moments of uncertainty when it’s possible that the wall of Republican support sheltering Trump finally crumbles. It is still unlikely to happen, but as I’ve written before, if it does happen, it will happen suddenly. …

… Most likely, Senate and House Republicans will eventually find a way to defend Trump’s actions, as they have done before (remember the impeachment trial?). Trump may not be perfect, they may say, but the Democrats are much worse. This is the prevailing rationalization of our zero-sum politics.

But in moments like this, when nobody knows exactly what to say or do, a few unlikely public critiques of Trump could have a surprising cascade effect. And if the president continues to transgress widely-shared democratic values — putting congressional Republicans in an increasingly difficult electoral position — we may yet see a consequential crack in the Republican Party.

Especially since public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the protesters it’s unlikely Trump will expand his base by continuing to be a dick about them. Remember the Bigger Asshole rule? You can’t possibly be a bigger asshole than Trump.

Steve Bell/The Guardian

 

Huge Demonstrations in DC; Trump Contaminates Swab Factory

It’s now official; while our attention was diverted elsewhere, Biden secured enough earned delegates to clinch the nomination. The convention will be just a formality. Last week Paul Waldman published a post titled Maybe Joe Biden isn’t such a terrible candidate after all. It’s worth reading.

The Washington Post reports that huge numbers of protesters have gathered in Washington DC and are engaged in multiple rallies in several parts of the district. I fervently wish them much success and an injury-free day. Do check out the photograph that accompanies the article, showing crowds approaching the White House from Lafayette Square Park. See the snipers on the roof of the White House? The equestrian statue is of Andrew Jackson..

Yesterday Trump was jubilant because of an unexpectedly not too awful jobs report. It turns out there was a misclassification error in the report that made the numbers look better than they are. Oops. Trump hadn’t tweeted about the error, though, when I checked.

At Vanity Fair, Eric Lutz writes that polls show Americans massively disapprove of Trump’s handling of the protests.

Two-thirds of Americans in an ABC News survey published Friday said they disapproved of the president’s handling of the response to Floyd’s killing, compared with just 32% who approve. As the Atlantic’s David Frum pointed out, it’s possible that some of those disapprove because they want Trump to be even more aggressive in his approach. But the poll suggests that it’s Trump’s authoritarian crackdown, divisiveness, and disregard for protesters’ demands that is driving the disapproval. …

… There remains a receptive audience for this ugly conception of “law and order”—it worked for Richard Nixon, Richard Daley, and countless others in the 1960s, and Trump aides are counting on it working for the president come November. But wrenching video of Floyd’s killing—as well as a spree of clips documenting outrageous, seemingly unprovoked violence by police against protesters in recent days—have made the issues at play here exceedingly difficult to deny.

The issue of the militarization and brutality of police is at the forefront now. See Jamelle Bouie, The Police Are Rioting. We Need to Talk About It.

Rioting police have driven vehicles into crowds, reproducing the assault that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. They have surrounded a car, smashed the windows, tazed the occupants and dragged them out onto the ground. Clad in paramilitary gear, they have attacked elderly bystanders, pepper-sprayed cooperative protesters and shot “nonlethal” rounds directly at reporters, causing serious injuries. In Austin, Texas, a 20-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the head with a “less-lethal” round. Across the country, rioting police are using tear gas in quantities that threaten the health and safety of demonstrators, especially in the midst of a respiratory disease pandemic.

None of this quells disorder. Everything from the militaristic posture to the attacks themselves does more to inflame and agitate protesters than it does to calm the situation and bring order to the streets. In effect, rioting police have done as much to stoke unrest and destabilize the situation as those responsible for damaged buildings and burning cars. But where rioting protesters can be held to account for destruction and violence, rioting police have the imprimatur of the state.

We got a preview of all this after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. At that time Joan Walsh wrote,

“This looks like a textbook case of what not to do,” Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund told Lawrence O’Donnell.

On the 49th anniversary of the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, it’s important to remember that the famous Kerner Commission established to look at 1960s urban upheavals found that virtually every “riot” was triggered by police brutality – and that has continued in our own time, from the so-called Rodney King riots in 1992 through today. On MSNBC Ifill indicted the failures of police training and culture that led not only to the killing of Michael Brown, but also the overreaction to every night of protests.

But Ifill also made the important point that the militarization of the Ferguson police is something entirely new and enormously disturbing. The images Wednesday night should wake all of us up to the alarming militarization of local cops all over the country. How did a local police department get tanks and trucks and body armor that look like it all was designed for the streets of Baghdad and not a little city outside St. Louis?

This is one of many issues that has been allowed to fester for too long. We need massive police reform. See also the New York Times editorial board, America’s Protests Won’t Stop Until Police Brutality Does and Charles Pierce, The Chief Vector Is the Executive Branch.

Elsewhere, in the Baby Steps department, we learn that the U.S. Marines have officially banned displays of Confederate flags, including on bumper stickers and coffee mugs, at any of their installations.  Only took ’em just under 160 years.

Is there no end to the Stable Genius? Trump toured a factory that makes swabs for coronavirus testing in Maine. That’s fine, but all the swabs made while he was in the factory will have to be tossed. It’s not clear from the article whether this was done because El Dumbo’s refusal to wear a mask contaminated the product (likely) or some other reason.

Other Stuff to Read

Franklin Foer, The Atlantic, The Trump Regime Is Beginning to Topple. We can hope.

Lisa Mascaro, TPM, Joint Chiefs Of Staff Chairman Privately Reached Out To Dem Leadership This Week

Toughness Isn’t Strength, Unless You’re a Brillo Pad

I’m seeing more about Trump’s new White House fortifications. See With White House effectively a fortress, some see Trump’s strength — but others see weakness at the Washington Post.  This was published last night:

The security perimeter around the White House keeps expanding. Tall black fencing is going up seemingly by the hour. Armed guards and sharpshooters and combat troops are omnipresent.

In the 72 hours since Monday’s melee at Lafayette Square, the White House has been transformed into a veritable fortress — the physical manifestation of President Trump’s vision of law-and-order “domination” over the millions of Americans who have taken to the streets to protest racial injustice.

The White House is now so heavily fortified that it resembles the monarchical palaces or authoritarian compounds of regimes in faraway lands — strikingly incongruous with the historic role of the executive mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, which since its cornerstone was laid in 1792 has been known as the People’s House and celebrated as an accessible symbol of American democracy.

Please take a look at the map that goes with the article. The new fencing isn’t just around the White House lawn. It looks as if the White House is attempting to fence in everything from the north side of Lafayette Square — right across the street from St. John’s Church — down to Constitution Avenue, south of the Ellipse. That’s a lot of territory that has always been open to the public.

This week’s security measures follow nighttime demonstrations just outside the campus gates last weekend that turned violent. White House officials stressed that Trump was not involved in the decision to beef up security

Oh, bullshit he wasn’t.

or to increase the fencing around the compound’s perimeter, with one senior administration official saying that the precautions are not unique to the Trump administration.

Trump has been crowing that such fortifications prove that he’s strong, or something.

“Washington is in great shape,” Trump said Wednesday in a Fox News Radio interview. “I jokingly said, a little bit jokingly, maybe, it’s one of the safest places on earth. And we had no problem at all last night. We had substantial dominant force and it — we have to have a dominant force. Maybe it doesn’t sound good to say it, but you have to have a dominant force. We need law and order.”

Others disagree.

Deborah Berke, dean of the Yale School of Architecture, said the White House barricaded as if it were a military base, with multiple layers of black fencing surrounding the limestone Georgian structure, conveys the opposite message and represents a physical violation of democracy.

“I think the need to fortify your house — and it’s not his house; it’s our house — shows weakness,” she said. “The president of the United States should not feel threatened by his or her own citizens.”

Of course, in Trump’s mind “his citizens” are only the people who vote for him. Everyone else is an alien.

Trump likes to talk about being “tough.” He praised the despotic Kim Jong Un for being “tough.” He likes to brag about how he has the “tough people” on his side. He clearly thinks to be “tough” — to be brutal, to dominate, to run roughshod over everything in your way — is a positive attribute. People who are not tough are “weak.”

Clearly, Trump sees toughness as strength. Some dictionary definitions agree. But is it?

Trump’s form of toughness has more to do with being armored against the outside world. It’s about having a big defensive layer between himself and anything that threatens him. That says nothing about personal fortitude. Fortitude, personal strength, comes from internal qualities and does not depend on how many bodyguards you have.

Eric Lutz at Vanity Fair wrote of the Bible Stunt:

Hard to imagine any other [president] having the guts to walk out of the White House like this,” former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker tweeted. And yet, having protesters cleared out beforehand is hardly an act of courage. Barack Obama met with protesters in the Oval Office in 2014 following the killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson. Even Richard Nixon, who at times encouraged violence against Vietnam War demonstrators, went to the Lincoln Memorial for a surprise visit with protesters in the fever that followed the killings of Kent State students by Ohio National Guardsmen. Trump? He talked tough in the Rose Garden, walked down a street that had been emptied just for him with tear-gas and rubber bullets and heavily-armored police, and posed for pictures. As Anderson Cooper put it Monday evening: “He was hiding in a bunker, and he is embarrassed that people know that, so what does he have to do? He has to sic police on peaceful protesters, so he can make a big show of being, you know, the little big man, walking to a closed down church.”

Eric Lutz also writes about the new White House wall:

The new fortification—which a Secret Service source told Fox News is “standard anti-riot fencing and ranges from seven feet to more than nine feet high”—comes amid days of largely peaceful protests outside the White House. On Friday, after some of those demonstrating against systemic racism and police brutality breached temporary fences near the White House, Trump and his family were whisked into a secure bunker—a sore spot for the president, who has spent days now trying to convince everyone that he wasn’t rattled by the episode and that he’s actually super brave. On Monday, he more or less declared war on protesters in the Rose Garden and made a show of walking off the White House grounds to a historic church that had been damaged in the demonstrations. But the tough-guy act was undermined by the fact that he used chemical agents and rubber bullets on peaceful protesters to clear the way for the stunt. Foiled in his initial attempt to save face, he tried a new tack on Wednesday: Claiming, hilariously, that he had actually only gone down to the bunker for an “inspection” of the space.

A strong person wouldn’t be so defensive about being rushed into the bunker.

The word toughness can connote an ability to withstand hardship and adverse conditions. But we all know that ain’t Trump. Trump’s form of “toughness” is external. It’s hiding behind fencing and steel and bullet-proof plexiglass. It’s having a tough outer shell that protects the marshmallow center.

In the last post I documented that a lot of past presidents managed to not be seen assuming a fetal position while huge and hostile protests raged outside. Think also of Abraham Lincoln occupying the White House while the Civil War was being fought in Virginia. The District of Columbia itself was well fortified, but anyone could walk into Lincoln’s White House without being challenged.

But put a few people outside the old fence carrying signs, and Trump is undone.

Related — the Trump campaign is now selling camouflage MAGA hats.

“When you become a member of the Trump Army today, we’ll give you access to our never-before-seen Limited Edition Camo Keep America Great Hat,” the email blurts, bold-face lettering and all.

“The president wants YOU and every member of our exclusive Trump Army to have something to identify yourselves with, and to let everybody know that YOU are the president’s first line of defense when it comes to fighting off the liberal mob.”

Yeah, nothing says “battle ready” better than a stupid cloth hat.

Meanwhile, we’re seeing more signals that the professional military is backing off from Trump.

“There is a thin line between the military’s tolerance for questionable partisan moves over the past three years and the point where these become intolerable for an apolitical military,” said Douglas E. Lute, a retired three-star Army general who coordinated Afghanistan and Pakistan operations on the National Security Council for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and later became the American ambassador to NATO. “Relatively minor episodes have accumulated imperceptibly, but we are now at a point of where real damage is being done.”

I sensed there was a real rupture between the military and Trump back when Trump betrayed the Kurds last fall. Still, the brass doesn’t criticize sitting presidents, as a rule. But he’s pushed them too far. Even Defense Secretary Mark Esper seems to have distanced himself from Trump, at least a little bit.

The Pentagon has told the District of Columbia National Guard and guardsmen from other states who have arrived in the nation’s capital as backup to not use firearms or ammunition, a sign of de-escalation in the federal response to protests in the city after the killing of George Floyd, according to officials familiar with the decision.

The Department of Defense, led by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, appears to have made the decision without consulting the White House, where President Trump has ordered a militarized show of force on the streets of Washington D.C. since demonstrations in the city were punctured by an episode of looting on Sunday. Trump specifically had encouraged the National Guard to be armed.

Initially, a small group of the guardsmen deployed in the city had been carrying guns while standing outside monuments, but the bulk of the forces, such as those working with federal park police at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, didn’t carry firearms out of caution. Now, all of the roughly 5,000 guardsmen who have been deployed or are deploying to Washington, D.C., have been told not to use weaponry or ammunition, according to four officials familiar with the order.

We’re now getting some signals that the Bible Stunt didn’t help Trump’s approval numbers, and polls also show the public doesn’t approve of Trump’s “tough” handling of the protests.

But Trump can’t change; stunts and bluster are all he knows how to do, so don’t expect him to improve. And don’t expect him to show genuine strength, because he doesn’t know what that is. He’s nothing but a whiny, spoiled child with a lot of bodyguards.

See also The cowardly president hides — again.

Trump Is a Big Cowardly Wuss, Illustrated

Of course the candy ass weenie had more fencing installed around the White House. Notice the concrete barricades, too.

Concrete barricades are placed behind exterior fencing outside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House on Thursday, June 4, 2020, following a night of protests against the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.Tom Brenner / Reuters

Lyndon Johnson certainly wasn’t that big a weenie.

WASHINGTON, : American youths stage a rally 30 November 1965 in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. protesting United States military involvement in the Vietnam war. (Photo credit should read AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

It’s not like the old antiwar protests in Washington weren’t impressive.

Antiwar demonstrators in Washington in October, 1967.Credit…Associated Press

Even the eternally disgraced Richard Nixon wasn’t that big a wuss.

Hundreds of thousands of angry young Americans descended on nation’s capitol on May 12, 1970 to protest U.S. involvement in Indochina and the Kent State University shootings earlier in the week.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

A lesser weenie, Ronald Reagan, in 1983 had three-foot-high concrete barricades placed at the northwest and southwest entrances to the White House grounds after slaughter of Marines in their barracks in Lebanon. I don’t have a photo. After that it became common to put up concrete barriers at entry points during security alerts, such as after the September 11 attacks.

There were some sizable protests at the White House during the Bush II Administration. I’m not seeing extra fencing.

Anti war protestors march past the White House in Washington, DC on October 26, 2002 to protest President George W. Bush’s policy advocating war against Iraq. Washington police… moreAnti war protestors march past the White House in Washington, DC on October 26, 2002 to protest President George W. Bush’s policy advocating war against Iraq. Washington police estimated the crowds to be as large as 50,000. Tom Mihalek/AFP/Getty Images)

Biggest baby ever, or what?

A giant balloon inflated by activists depicting US President Donald Trump as an orange baby is seen during a demonstration against Trump’s visit to the UK in Parliament Square in London on July 13, 2018. – US President Donald Trump launched an extraordinary attack on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit strategy, plunging the transatlantic “special relationship” to a new low as they prepared to meet Friday on the second day of his tumultuous trip to Britain. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP) (Photo credit should read TOLGA AKMEN/AFP/Getty Images)

Update: #BabyGate trends as Trump’s White House border fence gets a hilarious new nickname

Mattis to Military: Don’t Obey Trump’s Illegal Orders

Gen. James Mattis’s public rebuke of Trump, published yesterday at The Atlantic, was extraordinary and possibly unprecedented. It also has huge implications for Trump’s continued mishandling of the ongoing protests. I’ll paste the complete statement from Mattis to the end of this post.

The relationship between the military and civilian authority is central to U.S. military culture. The military sees itself as subsurvient to civilian authority, which is a good thing — we don’t want the military to become a power unto itself. But military personnel also swear to uphold the Constitution. And this gives us the possible nightmare scenario — what do they do if civilian authority in the person of the Commander in Chief gives them an illegal or unconstitutional order?

Over the past few days there has been a lot of talk of that very thing. What would happen if Trump ordered troops to attack protesters exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble? Monday, that happened. And Trump is still ranting about using the Insurrection Act to send federal troops into U.S. cities. This is not a hypothetical question.

I have heard from many sources that career military officers hold General Mattis in the highest regard; he commands huge moral authority, even if he is retired from active duty. And the implication of yesterday’s message was clear — the military must not obey Trump if he orders troops to end demonstrations.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

“We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society.” That’s an extraordinary thing for a general to say of the Commander in Chief.

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

Not everyone in the military is honorable, of course, but I honestly believe this takes the option of using federal troops any way he wants out of Trump’s hands. The brass will listen to Mattis before they listen to Trump.

General Mattis has been criticized for his silence on Trump up until now. I have criticized him, and top brass generally, too. From six months ago:

One of the central values of the American military is that they are subservient to civilian authority, and civilian authority is personified in the Commander in Chief. So exposing the POTUS as a monster would be extraordinarily difficult thing for them, no question. But more difficult than, say, storming Normandy Beach?

Clearly, talk of using federal troops against civilians was a bridge too far for Mattis. It’s interesting also that he evoked Nazis —

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Bringing up Nazis also evokes the Nuremberg Trials and reminds us that “we were only following orders” is no excuse.

It’s not stopping with Mattis. Yesterday Gen. John Allen (U.S. Marine Corps, retired) published an op ed at Foreign Affairs that, in brief, ripped Trump another asshole. (See also Paul LeBlanc, CNN, Retired Marine Gen. John Allen: Trump’s threats of military force may be ‘the beginning of the end of the American experiment’.)  I had already noted yesterday that Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chair of the Joint Chiefs during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, wrote that he is disgusted with the Bible Stunt.

Trump, of course, responded to Mattis with his signature juvenile insults.

My understanding is that nobody fired General Mattis; he was head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) when he retired from the Marines in 2013, and he resigned as Trump’s Secretary of Defense in 2019. Also, Mattis has had the nickname “mad dog” for many years, according to Snopes, and it probably originated as a kind of term of endearment from his troops. Troops absolutely cannot stop himself from lying. It’s pathological.

See also Mattis, other military leaders close ranks against Trump at NBC News and Greg Sargent, Trump’s latest eruption just showed that Jim Mattis is entirely right.

I don’t know if there are many examples of a commanding general refusing a direct order of the President, but I do know of one. In June 1865, a U.S. district judge handed down treason indictments against former Confederate generals Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and some others. Under the signed surrender agreements, these officers would remain paroled and free from prosecution as long as they obeyed the laws of the United States and did not take up arms against the United States. President Andrew Johnson — to my mind, the only POTUS who comes close to challenging Trump as “worst POTUS of all time” — fully supported the traitor charges.

Ulysses Grant was the highest ranking officer in the U.S. military at the time. Johnson asked Grant when Robert E. Lee might be arrested; Grant said, “Never.” Grant made it clear to Johnson that if ordered to arrest Lee, he would resign first. Per Grant biographer Ron Chernow, such an arrest would not only have violates the surrender agreement Grant had signed with Lee at Appomattox; arresting Lee would also have likely caused a lot of former Confederate soldiers to take up arms against the government again. Johnson recognized that Grant was a whole lot more popular than he was and told the district judge to drop the indictments.

Grant spent all of the Andrew Johnson Administration walking a tightrope between his duty to obey the Commander in Chief and his duty to the law and Constitution; it’s a fascinating bit of history that Chernow explains nicely. The point is that these are issues top brass has had to contend with before. They just haven’t had to do it recently.

The statement from General Mattis:

IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH

I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.  — General James Mattis

 

 

Ulysses S Grant Memorial, Washington, DC

More (Lunatic) Details of the Bible Stunt Emerge

Someday, Trump may wonder if the photo was worth it.

The Bible stunt may be turning into a watershed moment in the Trump Administration, the beginning of a slide into utter ignominy. And we’re getting a clearer picture now of what really happened on Monday when Trump decided to use a church and a Bible for a photo op.

According to How Trump’s Idea for a Photo Op Led to Havoc in a Park in the New York Times, The whole mess began on Sunday night. That’s when protests near the White House caused the Secret Service to escort Trump into the White House bunker, while exterior lights were turned off as if it were Halloween and the residents were out of candy.

But then, news stories began to portray Trump as afraid and hiding from the turmoil. Trump decided he was gonna show ’em.

On Monday, an enraged Trump wanted to send federal troops into U.S. cities, an idea opposed by advisers. This was followed by the famously unhinged conference call in which Trump yelled at state governors for being weak, and in which Secretary of Defense Mark Esper tells governors to “dominate the battle space.”

But then Trump, or more likely Ivanka, came up with another plan — Trump could show his strength by marching across Lafayette Park to St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been damaged by fire the night before. Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows also contributed to the plan.

What could go wrong?

The plan was to have Trump give a statement in the Rose Garden a bit after 6 pm and then walk to St. John’s with the press corps looking on. But the presence of protesters in the park was a problem. Attorney General Bill Barr was given the job of clearing the park of protesters, because we can’t have Mr. Tough Guy seen in the vacinity of peaceful protesters, can we? From the New York Times:

Reinforcements were summoned. Just before noon, an alert went out to every Washington-area agent with Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, telling them to prepare to assist with any demonstration, according to an email labeled with a “high” severity. The F.B.I. deployed its elite hostage rescue team, highly armed and trained agents more accustomed to arresting dangerous suspects than dealing with riots. And ICE deployed its “special response teams” to protect agency facilities and be on call for more.

But others were reluctant to help. Mr. Trump was so aggressive on the call with governors that when Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia received a request to send up to 5,000 of his state’s National Guard troops, he grew concerned. His staff contacted Ms. [Washington, DC Mayor Muriel] Bowser’s office and discovered that the mayor had not even been notified of the request. At that point, Mr. Northam turned the White House down. Similarly, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York called off buses of National Guard troops that were to head to Washington.

Throughout the afternoon, demonstrators continued to gather in Lafayette Park.

By midafternoon on Monday, protesters had gathered again on H Street at the north side of Lafayette Square, this time peacefully. The Rev. Gini Gerbasi, the rector of St. John’s Church in Georgetown and a former assistant rector at St. John’s, arrived around 4 p.m. with cases of water for the demonstrators. Joining her on the church patio were about 20 clergy members who passed out snacks.

Next to them on the patio, a group affiliated with Black Lives Matter mixed water and soap in squeeze bottles as emergency eye wash if protesters were tear-gassed by the police.

By about 5 o’clock trucks loaded with National Guard troops were arriving in the area. (I haven’t seen from which state(s) these troops were deployed.) The Secret Service had snipers on the roof of the West Wing. The White House Press Corps was summoned to the Rose Garden to hear a statement scheduled for 6:15. As the reporters assembled, troops arrived in Lafayette Park and put on gas masks.

At 6:17 p.m., a large phalanx of officers wearing Secret Service uniforms began advancing on protesters, climbing or jumping over barriers at the edge of the square at H Street and Madison Place. Officials said later that the police warned protesters to disperse three times, but if they did, reporters on the scene as well as many demonstrators did not hear it.

Some form of chemical agent was fired at protesters, flash bang grenades went off and mounted police moved toward the crowds. “People were dropping to the ground” at the sound of bangs and pops that sounded like gunfire, Ms. Gerbasi said. “We started seeing and smelling tear gas, and people were running at us.”

By 6:30 p.m., she said, “Suddenly the police were on the patio of St. John’s Church in a line, literally pushing and shoving people off of the patio.”

No one associated with St. John’s or the Episcopal Diocese of Washington had been notified about the White House plans. The people at the church said they were given no instructions or warnings; the troops or police or whoever they were just showed up and started shoving.

White House correspondents were still waiting in the Rose Garden. The statement scheduled for 6:15 was postponed to 6:30, and finally happened at 6:43. One assumes Trump was waiting for word that all those nasty protesters, Episcopal clergy, and seminarians had been cleared out of the way.

Trump spoke for seven minutes. It was a strange statement, obviously written for him since it was in recognizably proficient English. Here is just a bit

That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America.  I am mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.  Therefore, the following measures are going into effect immediately:

First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that has spread throughout our country.  We will end it now.  Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.  Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.

If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

He finished the talk with “And now I’m going to pay my respects to a very, very special place.  Thank you very much.” And then the walk to St. John’s began.

I understand the White House released a video of the march accompanied by “triumphal music,” but I haven’t been able to find it.

Trump was accompanied by Barr, Esper, Meadows, Kushner, and Ivanka, the Times says. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and national security adviser Robert O’Brien appear in some of the photos of the Bible Stunt, so they must have gotten there somehow. And the fellow in military fatigues is chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley.

Now we get to the Bible Stunt itself, which is brilliantly described by Robin Givhans, fashion critic for the Washington Post.

None of them was wearing a mask, because that would remind everyone that the world is still facing a pandemic, and besides, the masks would ruin the picture. Everyone stood apart, but not six feet apart. They didn’t lower their head in prayer or silent tribute to George Floyd — the man whose death after nearly nine minutes under the knee of a white Minneapolis police officer sparked this uprising. Their arms dangled at their side. No one seemed to know where to look or what to do or how long to stand there. …

… The photographs in front of St. John’s captured the president’s fundamental discomfort with what it means to exist out in the open where people do not soothe him with flattery, where brute force is an accelerant, not an answer, and where imperfect lives spill outside their borders. Trump worked so hard for his flaccid, sanitized photograph: a man standing with nothing but white bureaucrats — most of them men — on the plaza in front of a neatly boarded-up house of worship. Trump isn’t even really at the church; he’s in its vicinity.

At one point, standing alone, he’s holding the Bible not like it’s a source of enduring comfort but like it’s a soiled diaper.

Do read the whole piece; it’s wonderful. Now, back to the New York Times:

The president’s movement surprised nearly everyone, as he intended, including law enforcement. The Washington police chief said he was notified only moments beforehand. Park Police commanders on the scene were as surprised as everyone else to see the president in the park.

I’ve remarked before that the White House has a pattern of enacting things without consulting with the entities expected to carry out those things. This is mostly incompetent staff work, I think, but on this occasion it may be that Trump just wanted to surprise everyone.

Anyway, without saying anything, Trump got his photo taken holding the upside down Bible, and then he returned to the White House.

The police and other forces pursued demonstrators around the capital the rest of the evening, with military helicopters even swooping low overhead in what were called shows of force. Mr. Barr and General Milley at different points roamed the streets. … By Tuesday afternoon, the crowds were back and even bigger.

As I wrote yesterday, the stunt mightily pissed off the Washington Episcopalians. By now, we’ve heard from a lot more Christians who were heartifly offended by the stunt. Only Trump’s base of white conservative evangelicals appear to approve of it. Even some white evangelicals were distressed, though.

Later that evening, helicopters flew low over the demonstrations, low enough to knock individuals off their feet. There are reports this was ordered by Trump himself.

Josh Marshall, just now:

The last 48 hours have seen multiple press reports of people who appear to be federal law enforcement patrolling in the vicinity of the White House, refusing to identify who they are or what agency they represent. According to a report this afternoon from Garrett Haake of NBC News federal law enforcement officers of some kind pushed the crowd perimeter back from the White House but refused to identify themselves, what agency they represented and had removed all insignia or name plates that might identify them.

More fallout:

Pentagon officials insist that neither General Milley or Defense Secretary Esper knew about the photo op plan or the tear gassing of demonstrators in advance; they were just going along with whatever Trump was doing. Even so, a Pentagon policy adviser resigned in disgust over Esper’s participation in the stunt.

Esper is in hot water with Trump, too. This morning he said he does not support using the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops to cities for riot control. Esper is now said to be in “precarious standing” with the White House.

Last night the Trump campaign demanded that news media “correct” the accounts of tear gas being used in Lafayette Park. It wasn’t tear gas, the campaign says. Yeah, it was.

General Mike Mullen, who was chair of the Joint Chiefs during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, wrote that he is disgusted with the Bible Stunt.

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president’s visit outside St. John’s Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump’s leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump’s goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

I think if Trump pushes his Insurrection Act plan any further, he risks getting a big refusal from the top brass of the military. The brass doesn’t like Trump, and I don’t think they will allow themselves to be pushed into bringing dishonor on their branches of service.  We’ll see.

Greg Sargent writes that Congress isn’t being briefed on any of Trump’s “plans” for the use of force against demonstrations. This is not how Washington normally functions.

Trump now says he was “inspecting” the White House bunker, not hiding in it.

Today I’m hearing from several sources that Derek Chauvin is now being charged with 2nd degree murder in the death of George Floyd, and other officers at the scene are being charged with aiding and abetting.

See also ‘This can’t be happening’: An oral history of 48 surreal, violent, biblical minutes in Washington in the Washington post. Bottom line, Trump utterly screwed himself with the Bible Stunt.

Update: Mattis to Military: Don’t Obey Trump’s Illegal Orders

Trump’s Bible Stunt and Its Larger Implications

Yesterday, Donald Trump gave a short speech in the Rose Garden in which he declared “My first and highest duty as President is to defend our great country and the American people.” And then he walked to St. John’s Episcopal Church in downtown Washington to be photographed by the church, holding a Bible (upside down and backwards).

Police cleared a path for Trump by tear-gassing peaceful protesters — people Trump had just sworn to protect — in Lafayette Park. Several of the people tear-gassed were Christian clergy and seminarians who were offering support, bottles of water, and hand sanitizer to the demonstrators. Prior to Trump’s arrival at the church, police forcibly evicted at least one Episcopal priest and a seminarian from church property, presumably so they wouldn’t interfere with the photo op.

This stunt did not go over well with some people.

The Episcopal bishop of Washington, who oversees the church Trump visited, told the Washington Post Monday night that she was “outraged” over the president’s conduct. “I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop,” said Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde.

Jack Jenkins, reporting for Religion News Service (RNS):

“They turned holy ground into a battleground,” said the Rev. Gini Gerbasi.

Gerbasi, who serves as rector at a different St. John’s Episcopal Church, in nearby Georgetown, arrived at St. John’s Lafayette earlier that day with what she said were at least 20 other priests and a group of laypeople. They were organized by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington to serve as a “peaceful presence in support of protesters.”

The volunteers and clergy offered water, snacks and hand sanitizer to demonstrators who were gathered in Lafayette Park across the street — which sits directly in front of the White House — to denounce racism and police brutality after the death of Floyd.

But sometime after 6 in the evening, when volunteers were packing up supplies, Gerbasi said police suddenly began to expel demonstrators from the park — before the 7 p.m. curfew announced for Washington residents earlier in the day.

“I was suddenly coughing from the tear gas,” she said. “We heard those explosions and people would drop to the ground because you weren’t sure what it was.”

The Rev. Glenna J. Huber, rector of the Church of the Epiphany, another downtown Washington church, was at St. John’s but left as the National Guard arrived. She said she watched as police rushed into the area she had just fled. Concerned, the priest sent a frantic email to clergy at the church urging them to be careful.

Back at St. John’s, Gerbasi said she was dressed in clerical garb and standing on church grounds as police approached.

“I’m there in my little pink sweater in my collar, my gray hair up in a ponytail, my reading glasses on, and my seminarian who was with me — she got tear gas in her eyes,” she said.

Gerbasi said that as she and the seminarian watched, police began to expel people from the church patio.

“The police in their riot gear with their black shields and the whole bit start pushing on to the patio of St. John’s Lafayette Square,” she said, adding that people around her began crying out in pain, saying they had been shot with nonlethal projectiles.

And then Trump showed up to get his picture taken. That’s what it was all for.

And now, the implications.

Political and religious authority were wired together through most of human history. Ancient kings claimed to be gods. More recently, the crowned heads of Europe claimed to be annointed by God with absolute power — the famous “divine right of kings.”

Beginning in the 17th century, Europe began the process of separating religious and political power, a movement that inspired the authors of the Constitution to separate church and state in the First Amendment. A whole lot of smart people have argued that genuine democracy, the rule of the people, was not possible until religious and political authority were uncoupled.

Clearly, Trump’s Bible stunt is about reclaiming the old divine right to absolute power. Oh, I doubt he understood it that way, because the man is dumb as a sock. The stunt was aimed at propping up his support among right-wing white evangelicals, who today appear to be thrilled. But most of Trump’s Christian supporters wouldn’t recognize Jesus if he showed up with a halo and a name tag.

Here is the larger implication: The so-called Christian Right has always been about re-taking the divine right to rule the U.S. That was true in Jefferson’s day, and it’s still true. What they twist around and call “religious liberty” has nothing to do with civil rights but is strictly about establishing their own political authority and maintaining their tribal dominance.

The tension between some organized religion and democratic government is that some organized religion is based on belief in a duty to control everybody else. To quote a Stanley Fish essay from 2007 that I didn’t like all that much at the time, “what of religions that will not stay in place, but claim the right, and indeed the duty, to order and control the affairs of the world so that the tenets of the true faith are reflected in every aspect of civic life?” (You can read my objections to Fish’s essay here.)

The views of white Christian conservatism and Christian dominionism are incompatible with democracy. Indeed, one could argue they are incompatible with Christianity. It has long been a remarkably short step between the biblical “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19) and “spread white hegemony everywhere and crush native cultures and people for our own profits.”

I recommend a remarkable essay by the Rev. William H. Lamar IV, pastor of Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. It is titled “It’s Not Just the Coronavirus — Bad Theology Is Killing Us.”  He writes,

I believe it is time for those who claim to follow Jesus to declare, without equivocation, that white evangelicalism is a morally bankrupt, bone-crushing theological system devoid of any semblance of the deity incarnate in Christ.

The Rev. William H. Lamar IV preaching. Photo by Paul Holston, Tru1 Photography

Yeah, he said that.

I am a preacher. So as I dust the COVID-19 crime scene, I am ultimately in search of theological fingerprints.

What kind of God-talk makes possible a refusal to provide the universal health care that may have mitigated this crisis? What kind of God-talk makes possible a refusal to invest the money necessary to end homelessness? What kind of God-talk makes possible the racializing of criminality and poverty? What kind of God-talk gives political power to science-denying policymakers?

The answer? White evangelical God-talk. The injustices that many communities are experiencing as a result of the novel coronavirus are inextricably linked to this theology. The evidence is irrefutable.

Political systems require a theological system. Constantine glommed onto Christianity to strengthen Rome. The French, British and Dutch empires all used the signs and symbols of Christianity to plunder and to pillage. Norman Vincent Peale and Billy Graham were largely quiescent in the face of American warmongering abroad and racialized violence at home. (Integrating revivals is hardly enough.)

From what I can see, their purpose was access to power, not its conversion to the ways of Jesus. Even Vladimir Putin deploys the deep, symbolic well of Russian Orthodoxy to strengthen his dictatorial machinations.

If you were educated in the United States there’s a huge chance you know absolutely nothing about the European colonization of Asia. This is something I slowly learned about in my research into Buddhist history. Most Americans would be shocked today if they learned the full story of how Christian missions and European financial interests worked together to subjugate Asian peoples, destroy their cultures, and loot their resources. The same thing happened in Africa and in the Americas, of course.

The Rev. Mr. Lamar makes that connection also:

American white evangelicalism is the offspring of the religion of settler colonialists, and the raison d’etre of settler colonialism is to remove an existing population and replace it with another.

Settler colonialism is always violent, and it always has a theological system to support it.

The settlers who came to these shores were convinced that God was with them and that God commanded them to take what belonged to others. The idea that “what I survey I own” is deeply ingrained in white evangelicalism. Those who think, look or act differently are summarily marginalized, silenced and removed.

The fatal shooting of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery — chased down by two armed white men while jogging through their neighborhood — is just one recent example of this in action. And it’s why I argue that white evangelical theology’s settler colonial impulse fosters the conditions for the novel coronavirus to thrive.

Push black people onto islands of poverty and deny them health care, adequate housing and equal education. Keep them away. Send brown people, whether they were born in the United States or not, back home.

In the white evangelical imagination, certain bodies will never belong. This is why Mr. Trump knew that birtherism and calling Mr. Obama a Muslim would catapult him to white evangelical prominence even though he does not hold to its purported moral code.

Owning space and controlling bodies has always been more important than personal morality in that imagination.

I’ve never seen it expressed more clearly. Amen, Rev. Lamar. Do read his entire essay.

Now, let’s go back to Donald Trump and his Bible stunt. McKay Coppins writes at The Atlantic:

He wielded the Bible like a foreign object, awkwardly adjusting his grip as though trying to get comfortable. He examined its cover. He held it up over his right shoulder like a crossing guard presenting a stop sign. He did not open it.

“Is that your Bible?” a reporter asked.

“It’s a Bible,” the president replied.

Even by the standards of Donald Trump’s religious photo ops, the dissonance was striking. Moments earlier, he had stood in the Rose Garden and threatened to unleash the military on unruly protesters. He used terms such as anarchy and domestic terror, and vowed to “dominate the streets.” To clear the way for his planned post-speech trip to St. John’s Church, police fired tear gas and rubber bullets into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators.

And how are white evangelicals receiving this news?

A few hours after the dystopian spectacle, I spoke on the phone with Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor and indefatigable Trump ally. He sounded almost gleeful.

“I thought it was completely appropriate for the president to stand in front of that church,” Jeffress told me. “And by holding up the Bible, he was showing us that it teaches that, yes, God hates racism, it’s despicable—but God also hates lawlessness.”

“So,” he added, “I’m happy.”

In many ways, the president’s stunt last night—with its mix of shallow credal signaling and brutish force—was emblematic of his appeal to the religious right. As I’ve written before, most white conservative Christians don’t want piety from this president; they want power. In Trump, they see a champion who will restore them to their rightful place at the center of American life, while using his terrible swift sword to punish their enemies.

“I don’t know about you but I’ll take a president with a Bible in his hand in front of a church over far left violent radicals setting a church on fire any day of the week,” wrote David Brody, a news anchor at the Christian Broadcasting Network. (Trump selected St. John’s, which has hosted presidents since James Madison for worship services, because protesters had set a fire in its nursery the night before.)

“I will never forget seeing [Trump] slowly & in-total-command walk … across Lafayette Square to St. John’s Church defying those who aim to derail our national healing by spreading fear, hate & anarchy,” wrote Johnnie Moore, the president of the Congress of Christian Leaders.

In an email to me, Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, heaped praise on Trump for his visit: “His presence sent the twin message that our streets and cities do not belong to rioters and domestic terrorists, and that the ultimate answer to what ails our country can be found in the repentance, redemption, and forgiveness of the Christian faith.”

It’s possible these people didn’t know about the Rev. Gini Gerbasi, with her pink sweater and gray hair in a ponytail, being tear-gassed by police in advance of the photo op. It’s also possible that if they did know about it, they wouldn’t care. I am a child of the Bible Belt, and back in the day the evangelicals and pentacostals were clearly hostile to the “old church” denominations, especially Catholics but also mainline protestants such as Episcopalians. The older denominations that practiced infant baptism were not “real Christians,” they said. In my childhood I thought all people were separated into the sprinkled or the dunked.

We could spend hours reviewing the many ways Christianity in the U.S. has supported and affirmed the subjugation of nonwhite people, although we shouldn’t forget the other Christianities that stood against racism. Yes, antebellum Christian ministers in the South preached that slavery was part of God’s Plan, whatever that was, but at the same time northern evangelicals were leaders of the abolitionist movement. In the early part of the 20th century the Ku Klux Klan was tightly aligned with the white Christian fundamentalist movement. The “Religious Right” that helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980 and continues to support Republican politicians like Donald Trump emerged from opposition to desegregation in the 1960s and 1970s. These people never spoke for all Christians, however.

So I don’t doubt that, deep down, white evangelical leaders were just fine with the way Trump rolled over peaceful black demonstrators, and if some Episcopalian clergy got tear-gassed along the way, who gives a bleep?

I wrote back in 2007,

Without strict limits on the power of sectarian religion, liberal democracy cannot survive. Either religious strife will pull it apart, or else a dominant religious faction will take over and render government more authoritarian and intolerant of diversity. And that includes religious diversity.  … For a democratic republic, toleration of religious totalitarianism amounts to a suicide pact.

Certainly, democracies don’t need to be hostile to religion. But those religious organizations that work to destroy democracy need to be dealt with as any other organization that wishes to destroy democracy. They are enemies, and sometimes they are terrorists.

Trump is stupidly playing with forces he doesn’t fully understand, but I’m sure he doesn’t care. It’s all about his re-election now. If he can be re-elected by dragging the original Constitution out of the display case at the National Archives and putting it through a shredder, he would do it. If he can be re-elected by declaring national martial law and arresting every Democrat in Congress, he would do it. He doesn’t care about democracy or Christianity or anything else except his own sorry-ass self.

And that makes him the enemy, too.

McCay Coppins wrote, “To Trump, the Bible and the church are not symbols of faith; they are weapons of culture war.” Yes, and they are increasingly symbols of his political power. And, as we’ve seen, many Trump supporters also employ symbols of the Third Reich and the Confederacy, which also stand for white supremacy. Because it’s all linked together in that culture war.

At this point the “Christianity” that supports Trump is utterly incompatible with Jesus’ teaching and is little more than a front for white supremacy and a grab bag of other right-wing causes, such as the subjugation of women and discrimination against LBGTQ people. Yet many Christian clergy who oppose the white evangelicals have been reluctant to call them out for their obvious apostasy. That may change now. The fallout from Trump’s Bible stunt is still developing; many Christian clergy are outraged by it. Trump may have overplayed his hand.

Update: Today, the day after having Episcopal clergy and seminarians tear gassed, Trump visited a shrine to Pope John Paul II ostensibly to make a statement about religious liberty. The shrine is maintained by the Knights of Columbus, who may have approved the visit — they haven’t said — but the Washington Archbishop is mightily pissed off.

President Trump triggered sharp condemnation from top religious leaders for the second time in two days on Tuesday, with Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory slamming his visit to a D.C. shrine honoring Pope John Paul II.

On Monday, Trump’s appearance in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church across from the White House set off a controversy because it involved aggressively clearing peaceful protesters.

“I find it baffling and reprehensible that any Catholic facility would allow itself to be so egregiously misused and manipulated in a fashion that violates our religious principles, which call us to defend the rights of all people, even those with whom we might disagree,” Gregory said in a statement as Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrived at the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Northeast Washington. …

…In his statement, Gregory noted the legacy of Pope John Paul II, suggesting he would not have condoned Trump’s actions, including his walk to St. John’s as hundreds of demonstrators were protesting the death of George Floyd last week in the custody of the Minneapolis police.

“Saint Pope John Paul II was an ardent defender of the rights and dignity of human beings. His legacy bears vivid witness to that truth,” Gregory said. “He certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.” …

… In a statement, the shrine said that the White House originally scheduled the visit as an event for the president to sign an executive order on international religious freedom, but the president did not make any remarks during his visit.

This is from a Jesuit website:

Some Catholic leaders took to social media to critique Mr. Trump’s visit.

“As Trump visits the St John Paul II National Shrine today, I hope someone proclaims today’s Gospel (Mark 12:13-17) where Herodians and Pharisees are called out for their hypocrisy,” Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Ky., tweeted Tuesday morning.

Sister Simone Campbell, who heads the social justice lobbying group Network, said in a statement: “President Trump is now using the Catholic faith in another photo op to defend his appalling refusal to address racism and police violence in the United States. He is trying to create a false dichotomy of peaceful protestors versus the Church. That could not be further from the truth, and any Christian who believes it does not understand Jesus’s message.”

I thought the first rule of Catholicism is “don’t piss off nuns.” See also Trump Drives Through Sea Of Middle Fingers And ‘Bunker Bitch’ Signs On Way To Photo-Op.

The Cartoon President Can’t Deal With a Real Crisis

While I was writing this, the results of an independent autopsy of George Floyd ordered by the Floyd family were released.

Floyd died of ‘asphyxia due to neck and back compression,’ his family’s autopsy report finds — contradicting county’s initial exam

The independent autopsy appears to contradict information from the criminal complaint, which said that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” saying that “the combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

I don’t know if the independent autopsy found any “potential intoxicants.”

Last night, MSNBC’s Gadi Schwartz, reporting from Santa Monica, kept making the point that the looters and the protesters were separate groups. He was covering the looting; the protesting was going on elsewhere, he said. I suspect that’s true of most of this week’s protesting — much of the looting is being done by opportunists taking advantage of the moment, not by protesters. And then there is a third group, which seems more interested in vandalism and confronting the police than protesting.

Much of today’s political commentary involves discussing who, exactly, is doing what in the streets of our major cities. Let’s start with The Creature:

Occupy Wall Street? Seriously? All they did was pound on drums and back up the toilets, as I recall.

Trump personal attorney and so-called “attorney general” William Barr supported his boss yesterday.

Barr went on to blame the violent incidents in Minneapolis and other cities on “far-left extremist groups,” wording that echoes comments made earlier in the day by President Donald Trump in which he suggested the chaos was caused by “ANTIFA and the Radical Left” in a series of tweets.

“Unfortunately, with the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful protests are being hijacked by violent radical elements,” Barr said. “In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using Antifa-like tactics.”

This won’t surprise you:

Neither Barr nor Trump has offered any evidence backing their assertions of who was behind the violence and vandalism. Barr did not take questions during his two-and-a-half minute statement delivered on short-notice to a pool television camera at Justice Department headquarters.

Some news sources are making a fair attempt to explain who is who. Mark Bray at WaPo:

Trump’s reckless accusations lack evidence, like many of his claims. But they also intentionally misrepresent the anti-fascist movement in the interest of delegitimizing militant protest and deflecting attention away from the white supremacy and police brutality that the protests oppose.

Short for anti-fascist in many languages, antifa (pronounced AN-tifa) or militant antifascism is a politics of social revolutionary self-defense applied to fighting the far right which traces its heritage back to the radicals who resisted Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler in Italy and Germany a century ago. Many Americans had never heard of Antifa before masked antifascists smashed windows to shut down Milo Yiannopoulos in Berkeley, Calif., in early 2017 or confronted white supremacists in Charlottesville later that year — when a fascist murdered Heather Heyer and injured many more with his car in a way that frighteningly presaged the New York police officers who drove into protesters on Saturday in Brooklyn.

Based on my research into antifa groups, I believe it’s true that most, if not all, members do wholeheartedly support militant self-defense against the police and the targeted destruction of police and capitalist property that has accompanied it this week. I’m also confident that some members of antifa groups have participated in a variety of forms of resistance during this dramatic rebellion. Yet it is impossible to ascertain the exact number of people who belong to antifa groups because members hide their political activities from law enforcement and the far right, and concerns about infiltration and high expectations of commitment keep the sizes of groups rather small. Basically, there are nowhere near enough anarchists and members of antifa groups to have accomplished such breathtaking destruction on their own. Yes, the hashtag “#IamAntifa” trended on Twitter on Sunday, suggesting a very broad support of the politics of antifascism. Yet there is a significant difference between belonging to an organized antifa group and supporting their actions online.

Bray is the author of a book titled Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. I have not read it, but it’s gotten good reviews. I believe he knows what he’s talking about.

Neil MacFarquhar, the New York Times:

People associated with both the extreme right and left are being accused of igniting the conflagration. The Trump administration blamed what it called the radical left, naming antifa, a contraction of the word “anti-fascist” that has come to be associated with a diffuse movement of left-wing protesters who engage in more aggressive techniques like vandalism.

Others said white supremacists and far-right groups were responsible, pointing to online statements by adherents that the upheaval would hasten the collapse of a multiethnic, multicultural United States.

“The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Sunday, although it was unclear on what legal authority he could make that call.

The president has periodically criticized antifa, but it was not clear that Mr. Trump’s declaration would have any real meaning beyond his characteristic attempts to stir up culture war controversy, attract attention and please his base.

Antifa is not an organization, and it does not have a leader, membership roles or any defined, centralized structure. It is a vaguely defined movement of people who share common protest tactics and targets.

More important, even if antifa were a real organization, the laws that permit the federal government to deem entities terrorists and impose sanctions on them are limited to foreign groups. There is no domestic terrorism law despite periodic proposals to create one.

“There is no authority under law to do that — and if such a statute were passed, it would face serious First Amendment challenges,” said Mary B. McCord, a former head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

It’s been widely reported (and seen on photographs and videos) that much of the destructive behavior — window breaking and fire starting — is being perpetrated by whites. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of those whites are lefty-ish anarchists, but I’d bet money a lot of them are right-wing and white nationalist agitators. There is much chatter on social media that far-right groups like “boogaloo” militia and “three percenters” are embedded in the protests to cause chaos. But I’ve not seen anything specific about that in news reports.

It may be a while before we find out who is really doing what, and of course we can’t trust any information that comes out of Bill Barr’s Department of Justice. The facts will have to wait for a change of administration.

A man identified as Wesley Somers starts a fire in the Nashville court house, May 30. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2020/05/31/nashville-police-arrest-courthouse-fire-wesley-somers/5304025002/

We’re missing a lot of critical information. We’re also missing leadership. Trump is hiding in the White House. Please read David Graham’s “America Has No President.”

Yesterday, when America needed real leadership, the office of the president stood dark—and vacant.

It is not that Trump has been silent. Far from it: His Twitter feed has been a supercharged version of its normal self. Trump has attacked Joe Biden, slurred reporters, insulted leaders on the front lines of protests, and claimed federal authority he doesn’t have. This is the sort of behavior we’d call unhinged from any other president, but the word has lost any power through its endless, justified invocation throughout his tenure. In any case, the tweeting suggests a president flailing around for a message that sticks and for a sense of control.

What has been missing is any sort of behavior traditionally associated with the presidency. Trump initially condemned George Floyd’s killing by a Minneapolis police officer, but since then there have been no statements intended to quell anger, bridge divisions, or heal wounds. There have been no public appearances, either; Trump traveled all the way to Florida to watch a SpaceX rocket launch on Saturday, but hasn’t managed to travel in front of cameras for a formal statement.

During a teleconference Monday, Trump derided governors as “weak” in their response to protests, but he has cowered out of view, dithering about what to do except for armchair-quarterbacking those who are trying. As my colleague Peter Nicholas notes, even Richard Nixon went to speak with anti–Vietnam War protesters in 1970, trying to convey that he heard their complaints. It’s hard to imagine Trump doing something like that, because he has shown no interest in being perceived as caring about what his critics believe.

This is quintessential Trump, hiding under his desk while yelling at governors, in a conference call, to “dominate” the situation.

There are reports that some on his staff wanted him to address the nation — what a real president would do — but then decided anything Trump might actually say would just make things worse.

Paul Waldman:

In what will surely be remembered as one of the most extraordinary symbolic moments of this presidency, while smoke rose and police clashed with protesters right outside and the president retreated to his underground bunker, the White House turned off its exterior lights, leaving Trump’s residence in darkness. It’s as though he was saying, “I have nothing to offer you, so pretend I’m not here.”

See also Jennifer Rubin, “Trump Is in a Free Fall — for Now.”

Trump can’t meet this moment because he’s barely a human being, never mind a president. He’s a cartoon character, badly drawn and with limited scope, appearing in the wrong film — like Squiddly Diddly stumbling into Schindler’s List. He simply doesn’t have it in him — in either his intellect or personality — to plan ahead, to offer empathy, to appreciate the depth of a problem and see how to make a situation better. He can no more do those things than he can flap his arms and fly.

Well, right-wing America, this is what you wanted. I hope you’re happy.

Update: Now The Creature is threatening to send in federal troops. I hope this doesn’t turn into something even worse.