The last post outlined a clear pattern in the presidential election of 2024: people who lived in areas that received large transfers of money from the Federal government preferred Mr. Trump, while those who lived in areas that received less from the Federal government preferred Vice-President Harris. Given that Mr. Trump favored policies that would reduce employment (deportation), increase inflation (tariffs), and reduce revenues for the Federal government (tax cuts), that pattern seems inconsistent with the interests of those who rely on transfer incomes.
While curious, this pattern is not unique. For example, some Marxists use the concept of “false consciousness” to explain this self-defeating behavior. Britannica defines that concept this way:
“…false consciousness, in philosophy, particularly within critical theory and other Marxist schools and movements, the notion that members of the proletariat unwittingly misperceive their real position in society and systematically misunderstand their genuine interests within the social relations of production under capitalism. False consciousness denotes people’s inability to recognize inequality, oppression, and exploitation in a capitalist society because of the prevalence within it of views that naturalize and legitimize the existence of social classes.”
The concept does not seem relevant to the election of 2024. My own view was that there was a great deal of resentment against “elites” in campaign rhetoric, although support for a person who regularly bragged about how rich he was is inconsistent with that assessment. Moreover, false consciousness begs the question: it does not explain why people fail or refuse to act on evidence and logic to protect their interests.
I also have not fully answered that question, and the purpose of this post is to afford me an opportunity to clarify my thinking as well as to elicit other ideas from the readers of this post. What now follows is a wild tangent that I hope is ultimately relevant to an explanation.
My suspicion is that the failure to protect one’s own interests stems from the growing inexplicability of the world to most people. There is a growing discrepancy between what we can and cannot readily explain, and when the number of inexplicable events or processes occur, humans will often resort to myth or magic to explain what they cannot account for. It really did not matter whether one believed that the Norse god Thor was responsible for thunder and lightning or whether one believed that thunder and lightning was caused by friction of particles which create an electrostatic charge–thunder and lightning were going to occur no matter which explanation was proffered. But the question of why we believed what we believed is crucially important.
The mythological explanation for thunder and lightning required someone or some institution to legitimize the myth of the god, Thor; the scientific explanation required a process (something we call the scientific method) that neccessitated a broad agreement among those who come to conclusions based upon evidence and reasoning. Both the shaman and the scientist are authorities, but the shaman relies upon faith and the scientist relies on evidence. There is a profound difference in determining what constitutes a true statement between the two approaches.
Over time, the scientific method gained greater legitimacy as scientists such as Galileo and Newton carefully explicated the observations and subjected those observations and conclusions to review by those who accepted the method. Indeed, the increased rigor of the scientific method utlimately led to the pivotal role of “right reason”, or rationality, in the movement that we call the Enlightenment. Science emerged as the most effective way to resolve such problems as transportation and health, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in asserting that the scientific method became the most readily accepted basis for resolving questions about the efficacy of competing approaches to public policy. More importantly, the scientific method is responsible for the dramastic increase in public welfare thast has occurred since the early 19th century.
The price for this progress, however, was to deepen the ignorance of private citizens about how the increase in welfare actually occurred. It was fairly easy to correlate a horse with better transportation than walking–one fed and cared for the horse so that it could perform that essential role; it was less easy to make that same correlation to the automobile–what is a carburetor? How does one refine petroleum into gasoline? Do I really have to answer those quesitons to use a car? The same is true of virtually every aspect of modern life: every day we use things, like a computer, that we really do not fully understand, take medicines to which we have no personal connection such as the bark from a witch hazel tree, eat food that we could not produce for ourselves, wear clothes that we could not make for ourselves, and receive bills with charges that make no sense, only to find ourselves in a phone tree that is impossible to navigate, talking to a person (perhaps) who really does not care if our problem is resolved. Paradoxically, science has produced an environment whose existence might as well been created through sorcery.
Many generations have faced this conundrum, and usually there is a difficult period of transition between our understanding of the universe and our means of assessing that understanding of the universe–think of the Luddites. During this transitional period, shamans will exploit the gap between knowing and believing. In the present, that gap is huge. And since no one really knows how the whole system works, any explanation for its working becomes plausible. And it appears as if even preposterous explanations (“we will build a wall to prevent illegal immigration, and Mexico will pay for it”) can be readily accepted.
The next step in this process is to create a mythological reality which diverts attention from scientific reality. Since the 1980s, the mythological reality of the movement that ultimately led to the election of Mr. Trump in 2024 has been clear and best articulated by one of the gods of that movement, Ronald Reagan: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” How this myth distracted us from the fact that the real source of the economic dislocations of the globalization at the turn of this century was private corporate behavior will be the topic of the next post. End of tangent.
The Economic Innovation Group has published a new study entitled “The Great Transfer-mation” which is a report decrying the dependence of US citizens on income transfers from the government. There are many points in the report with which I strongly disagree and I found it personally useful to go through the mental exercise of critiquing flawed arguments and evidence. But the report does provide some information which I found quite interesting, the most important of which was the correlation between getting transfers from the Federal Government and votes in the recent presidential election in the US.
According to the report, in 2000 about 10% of counties in the US received significant income from the government; by 2022, that percentage increased to 53%. Those counties tended to be rural with a significant population of elderly people and considerably poorer than many other counties in the US. The transfer programs idenitified in the study include:
● Old age supports such as Social Security and Medicare
● Medical supports to low-income households such as Medicaid
● Veterans benefits
● Poverty alleviation and income maintenance supports such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
● Unemployment insurance (UI) compensation
● Education and training supports, such as Pell grants
The report is trying to make the case that the only way to address the growing dependence of Americans on income transfers is to stimulate economic growth through lower taxes and reduced regulation–in other words, a stronger commitment to the “trickle-down” myth of modern capitalism (despite all the evidence suggesting that that ideology is fundamentally flawed). But I found the link between income transfers and voting to be highly intriguing as reflected in the following graph:
The graph shows that those most dependent on income transfers were more likely to vote for Mr. Trump and that those who are less dependent on income transfers were more likely to vote for Vice-President Harris. That conclusion is not surprising and comports to my own understanding of why Trump was able to secure a popular majority.
The question is why were people who relied so heavily on aid from the Federal Government were so willing to back a candidate who made such an issue of government deficits and the need to control the Federal budget. The answer is that Mr. Trump was able to make the case that Federal aid was going to the “undeserving” poor (“illegal” immigrants and people who benefit from discriminatory DEI programs) and that he would protect the income transfers to those that truly “deserved” the support. Presumably, those Americans who voted for Trump obviously believed that they deserved those transfers.
The Harris campaign tried to refute those assertions, but many people were not persuaded even though the idea that undocumented individuals without social security numbers could ever receive aid from the Federal Government was clearly ludicrous. The question that nettles me is why it was so difficult for so many Americans to clearly assess their own self-interest.
The question is important to me because I dedicated much of my life to a process that demanded close attention to evidence and logic and I am now confronted with the possibility that many people no longer believe those standards are valid. Give me a few more days to think this over, and I will post those thoughts in a few days.
The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria is rapidly changing the geopolitics of the Middle East. The Assad family had ruled in Syria for 50 years, but its collapse only took a few weeks. At this time, I would not hazard a guess about who will rule Syria in the future, or even whether Syria will remain a nation-state or devolve into mini-states ruled by different factions.
In reality, Syria fell apart 13 years ago as a popular movement known as the “Arab Spring” swept through many states in the Middle East in 2011. The Assad regime barely survived that movement and has been propped up by both Russia and Iran since that time. Russia, weakened by its war against Ukraine, and Iran, weakened by the Israeli attacks against its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, were unable to maintain that support as a rebel group in Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, seized control of Damascus. But there are many groups within Syria, as described by the BBC:
“Among these groups – some now in Damascus – are rebel factions that once operated under the banner of the Free Syrian Army from southern towns and cities that had been dormant for years, but where the spark of rebellion had never entirely been sniffed out.
“Over to the east, Kurdish-led forces have benefited from the collapse of the Syrian army to take full control of the main city, Deir El-Zour. In the vast Syrian desert, remnants of the so-called Islamic State could also look to take advantage of the situation. And in the far north along the Turkish border, the Syrian National Army – backed by Ankara – could also prove to be a significant player in what happens next.”
In terms of the geopolitics of the region, the big losers are Russia and Iran. The big winners are Turkey and Israel. Turkish ambitions might be stymied by the strong Kurdish community in Syria. But the Israelis have taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria by launching military assaults against virtually every Syrian military installation. Mondoweiss reports:
“Even as Bashar al-Assad was scrambling to get out of Syria, Israel was mobilizing its military to take advantage of the power vacuum that Assad’s ouster had created. After five decades of a low-level conflict between the two countries, Israel saw an opportunity to change the calculus, and it seized it.
“As of Wednesday, Israel had struck Syria nearly 500 times. Their goal with these attacks has been to essentially destroy Syria’s military capability, and they have already succeeded. Reports by Israeli media claim that well over 80% of Syria’s weaponry, ships, missiles, aircraft, and other military supplies have been damaged or destroyed.
“In essence, Israel has rendered Syria completely defenseless. “
Moreover, Israeli Defense Forces have seized territory in Syria which includes Mount Hermon, which offers Israel a critically important strategic location giving it the ability to monitor activities in Lebanon and Syria with great accuracy. The map of Israeli occupation is striking.
Israel has ordered the IDF to maintain its control of Mount Hermon throughout the winter and has suggested that its occupation is temporary. But, given its strategic significance, it is unlikely that Israel will return control of the mountain to Syria. Indeed, some in Israel have proposed that Israel should annex the terriroty, as reported by the Middle East Monitor:
“Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli yesterday called for Israel to occupy the summit of Mount Hermon in Syria.
“Chikli said: ‘The events in Syria are far from a cause for celebration. Although Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham and its leader, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, portray themselves as a new product, ultimately most of Syria is now under the control of affiliate organisations of Al-Qaeda.’
“’The good news is the growing strength of the Kurds and the expansion of their control in the northeast of the country,’ the Likud Party member said, noting that ‘Israel must operationally renew its control at Mount Hermon [in the occupied Golan Heights] and establish a new line of defence based on the ceasefire line of 1974 [with Syria].’
“Chikli’s statements come despite a call by the office Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, not to make statements about developments in Syria, while the Likud Party asked its members in the Knesset not to conduct interviews about Syria without the approval of Netanyahu’s office, according to reports by the Israeli public radio yesterday.”
Israel has now seized territory in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria. This is unquestionably a war of conquest.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about the Amnesty International report on genocide in the Gaza Strip, I call to your attention a website created by Israeli historian, Lee Mordechai, an associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is entitled “Bearing Witness to the Israel-Gaza War.”
In his preface to the report, Mordechai says:
“The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.”
Further in the Preface, Mordechai directly addresses the critical questions of intent:
“The evidence I have seen and discuss indicates that one of Israel’s very likely objectives is to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, whether in part or in total, by removing as many Palestinians as feasibly possible. Key members in Israel’s government have made statements confirming this intent, and several of Israel’s government ministries have planned or worked to facilitate such an end, sometimes by persuading or pressuring other states. Israel has already cleared significant parts of the Gaza strip by demolition and bulldozing, also attempting to destroy the fabric of Palestinian society by deliberately targeting civilian institutions such as universities, libraries, archives, religious buildings, historical sites, farms, schools, cemeteries, museums and markets. So far more than 60% of the buildings in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed or damaged.”
He goes on:
“All the evidence I have seen indicates that Israel is systematically destroying Gaza to make it unlivable in the future. In the first week of fighting, Israel dropped 6,000 bombs on Gaza – over the annual total used by the US in Afghanistan.48 In the first three months of fighting Israel had destroyed over 10,000 buildings in the Strip – compared to some 4,700 buildings in Aleppo after three years of fighting. A coalition of aid groups stated in December that rebuilding the housing destroyed to that point will take 7 to 10 years if financing is available and will cost some $3.5 billion.49 According to a joint report by the World Bank and the UN, the cost of damage to physical structures alone was around $18.5 billion at the end of January (the cost during the 2014 Protective Edge was $1.4 billion).50 In mid May a UN official stated that rebuilding could cost around $50 billion over two decades.51 The amount of debris created by the destruction of residential areas (estimates ranged between 26 and 37 million tons in April) will take many years to remove.52 A top UN demining official claimed that simply clearing the debris could take as much as 14 years.53 An expert on the warfare-related destruction pointed out that the case of Gaza fits the term ‘domicide’, a massive violation of the right to housing and basic infrastructure in residential areas by making them inhabitable, which is itself a crime against humanity.48
“Israel is said to have dropped over 500 2,000-pound bombs within the densely populated urban area, despite the massive collateral damage these bombs cause (causing death or injury in a radius of up to 365 meters around the target). These bombs are four times heavier than the largest bombs the United States used when fighting ISIS in Mosul; the US dropped a single such 2,000-pound bomb throughout its fight with ISIS.54 After two months of fighting, Israel had already caused more destruction in Gaza than Syria in Aleppo (2012-2016), Russia in Mariupol in 2022, or (proportionally) the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II,55 as well as the fights against ISIS in Mosul (2016-7) and Raqqa (2017).56“
The report is meticulously documented and judicious in its language. It is definitely worth a careful read.
Amnesty International has issued a new report accusing the state of Israel with the crime of genocide in its actions against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. The crime of genocide is the most serious crime in international law and an accusation of genocide needs to meet extremely specific and demanding criteria of both actions and intent. Amnesty International is a well-respected human rights organization with a record of accomplishment that deserves respect.
It is a long, incredibly detailed report with evidence from a variety of credible sources. The report begins with an acknowledgement of what needs to be proven in order to support an accusation of genocide:
“To make a determination on genocide, Amnesty International first examined whether Palestinians in Gaza constitute part of a protected group under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), that is a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It then focused on three out of the five prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention: ‘killing members of the group’; ‘causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group’; and ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’. It finally examined whether Israel committed these acts with the specific ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the] group, as such’.”
The report then goes through each of these criteria and documents specific cases through eyewitness testimonies. I was unaware of several of these cases, even though I have tried to be as well-informed as I can on this conflict. Much of the evidence, largely from satellite imagery, suggests destruction in Gaza which can hardly be described as precision accuracy. And the degree of forced displacement is staggering. Given the scale of destruction in such a small area, it would be difficult to deny that the degree of “harm” inflicted on the population in the Gaza satisfies the first two criteria of the Convention.
The significantly more difficult question to answer is whether Israel intends to “destroy, in while or in part, [the] group, as such”. People have intentions; governments have intention; it is questionable whether “states” have intentions. In today’s US Department of State Press Briefing, members of the press questioned the matter of intent:
“QUESTION: Because now we have Amnesty International. Before that, we had Human Rights Watch. We have all the UN organizations, all the human rights organizations probably throughout the world, B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, every other organization saying that Israel is committing genocide. And depends – I mean it says – I know that genocide depends a great deal on intent, and it says – it bases its conclusion on statement time and time and time again by Israeli commanders, by Israeli officials, by certainly the president of Israel, by many, many other people that said they are committing genocide. I mean, we see that they have killed 44, 45 thousand people, 17,000 children. It deprives it food from going in, it deprives anesthesia from going on. CNN reported yesterday that Israel disallowed anesthesia from going into Gaza.
What is it going to take for you – for the United States of America that really holds the moral high ground on these issues, on human rights issues – to say what is happening is genocide? Because you are – what we see today, what we witness in northern Gaza is basically starvation by intent.
MR PATEL: Said, that’s an opinion. And you’re certainly welcome and you are entitled to it, as are all the organizations that you listed. They are entitled to make their own analysis of the situation and come to their own conclusions. What I can say as a spokesperson of the U.S. Government and as a spokesperson of this administration is that the findings of – the accusations of genocide, we continue to believe those to be unfounded. That does not change and that does not change the prioritization and the stress and the emphasis that we are placing on ensuring that there is appropriate access to humanitarian assistance, ensuring that every possible measure is taken to protect civilians, ensuring that we’re doing everything possible to bring this war to an end.
QUESTION: So —
MR PATEL: People, organizations, groups are entitled to draw their own conclusions. The U.S. conclusion is that these allegations of genocide are unfounded. There are and there continue to exist a number of avenues within the U.S. Government in which we are looking at what’s happening on the ground, where those assessments continue to be ongoing. But I don’t have any update to provide as it relates to that.
I sincerely doubt that there are many Israelis who wish to see the Palestinian people exterminated, even after the atrocities of 7 October. But does the government of Israel wish to see the Palestinian people exterminated? According to Amnesty:
“The offensive on Rafah was launched a week after Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich, a member of Israel’s security cabinet, explicitly called for the city’s destruction by referring to a well-known Biblical story of absolute vengeance in which an entire nation – the people of Amalek – is ordered to be destroyed: “There are no jobs half done. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat, destruction! Blot out the memory of [the people of] Amalek from under heaven,” he said at a public event on 29 April 2024. In fact, Minister of Finance Smotrich and Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir, who also made some of the most explicit calls for the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, threatened to quit the government coalition if Prime Minister Netanyahu abandoned plans to attack Rafah. Minister of Finance Smotrich’s statement came months after Prime Minister Netanyahu first referred to the story of the total destruction of the people of Amalek in the first week of Israel’s ground offensive in late October and early November 2023. He used it to garner support for what was, at the time, a new and highly destructive phase of the conflict. As Israel’s highest office-holder, who oversaw the offensive on Gaza, Prime Minister Netanyahu would have most certainly known that his words would be understood by soldiers, particularly those affiliated with the settler movement and religious nationalist parties led by the two ministers, as calls for the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.”
The Israeli Government has explicitly rejected the report. The US has not rejected the report, but has rather found it to be “unfounded”. There really is no way to determine what the intent of the destruction on the people and land of Gaza was or is. But the future will give us an answer. If the Palestinian people cannot repopulate the land because of Israeli occupation or sovereignty, then the intent to remove the Palestinian people will become clear. If the world wants to know what Israel’s intentions truly are, then the world should demand that Israel clearly state that the Palestinian people will be able to return and to live in the Gaza Strip as part of their own homeland, Palestine.
Last Tuesday, the Israeli Defense Force announced that its current plan is for the complete evacuation of Palestinians from north Gaza. The Guardian summarized the announcement:
“Israeli ground forces are getting closer to ‘the complete evacuation’ of northern Gaza and residents will not be allowed to return home, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has said, in what appears to be the first official acknowledgment from Israel it is systematically removing Palestinians from the area.
“In a media briefing on Tuesday night, the IDF Brig Gen Itzik Cohen told Israeli reporters that since troops had been forced to enter some areas twice, such as Jabaliya camp, ‘there is no intention of allowing the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes’.
“He added that humanitarian aid would be allowed to ‘regularly’ enter the south of the territory but not the north, since there are ‘no more civilians left’.”
With that announcement, it is clear that Israeli military actions against the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran no longer qualify as “self-defense” unless we decide to include ethnic cleansing as an act of self-defense. Indeed, the IDF tactic is similar to the horrific acts committed by the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia in the early 1990s. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum characterized these acts as war crimes:
“On April 5, 1992, the government of Bosnia declared its independence from Yugoslavia. The creation of an independent Bosnian nation that would have a Bosniak majority was opposed by Bosnian Serbs, who launched a military campaign to secure coveted territory and “cleanse” Bosnia of its Muslim civilian population. The Serbs targeted Bosniak and Croatian civilians in areas under their control, in what has become known as “ethnic cleansing.”
“During the subsequent civil war that lasted from 1992 to 1995, an estimated 100,000 people were killed, 80 percent of whom were Bosniaks. In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces killed as many as 8,000 Bosniak men and boys from the town of Srebrenica. It was the largest massacre in Europe since the Holocaust.”
There is little question that the act clearly qualifies as a war crime. The Fourth Convention of the Geneva Accords is explicit on the movement of civilian populations in an occupied territory:
ART. 49. — Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
There is little chance that there is any amount of pressure that will change Israel’s behavior, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly refused to accept most guidance from its allies. And now that former President Trump has been elected, it appears that US policy will be guided by the blank check suggested by Trump: “do what you have to do”. Netanyahu also seems to be preparing the US government for expanded actions against Palestinians in the West Bank by appointing Yechiel Leiter as the next Israeli Ambassador to the US. Leiter has been an advocate for annexing the West Bank. According to Middle East Eye:
“Leiter was a member of the Jewish Defence League, which was founded in the US by the far-right rabbi Meir Kahane. The group was later designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, although the designation was lifted in 2022 due to inactivity.
“Leiter’s son was killed last year in Gaza while serving with the Israeli military.
“Leiter’s appointment came just three days after Donald Trump’s election as US president. During his first term, Trump reversed decades of US policy that considered Israeli settlements in the West Bank a violation of international law.
“Under Trump, Israel aggressively expanded its settlement building, pushing deeper into the West Bank and constructing thousands of settler homes on Palestinian land.
“Trump also recognised Israel’s control over the Golan Heights, a Syrian territory that Israel annexed in 1981 in a move the international community has never recognised.
“Israel’s settler leaders and far-right figures welcomed Trump’s victory, particularly after the Biden administration imposed sanctions and asset freezes on settler groups and individuals involved in violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
“Leiter’s appointment suggests that Netanyahu plans to advance policies in line with the settler movement’s agenda, which includes the annexation of the West Bank.”
I expect that Netanyahu will take advantage of President Biden’s lame-duck status and move forward aggressively to resettle the Gaza and the West Bank. Israel’s behavvior is comparable to the atrocities in Bosnia, in Rwanda in 1994, and the ongoing war against the Royingha in Myanmar. The critical difference is that Israel would not be able to accomplish any of its goals without the support of the US, and the American complicity in the atrocity breaks my heart. But we can dispense with the idea that Israel is conducting a war of self-defense. It is quite clearly a war of conquest.
“Mussolini did not have any philosophy: he had only rhetoric” — Umberto Eco, 1955
Today has been very difficult for many. This post was written in a state of confusion, fear, and rage. So you should tread carefully here, because there are dragons.
We had hoped that Mr. Trump had effectively diminished his allure to voters, but that was not the case. Instead, we now face the prospect of a mob boss political system, bent on enriching only those who submit and disenfranchising those who do not submit.
This terrain will be difficult to navigate, and it creates a problem for those of us who opposed Mr. Trump. Knowing that he will punish anyone who disagrees with him and knowing that the Congress and the Supreme Court will not restrain his basest instincts leaves us in uncharted territory. The Supreme Court has completely abdicated its responsibility to maintain checks and balances in Trump v. The United States and has decided that it does not have the power to check executive power as long as there is some mention in the Constitution of the powers of the President, no matter how indirect or peripheral the reference. With the Republicans in control of the Senate and possibly of the House as well, there is no posssibility that that party will restrain Mr. Trump given his ruthless purge of malcontents in the party.
We should place the blame for this situation squarely on the Republican Party which has completely abandoned its responsibility to defend the Constitution. The Democrats ran a very effective campaign which was not sufficient. What does the failure of opposition to Mr. Trump mean?
The election of 2024 was essentially a rerun of the early 20th Century. The end of the 19th Century brought about a wave of globalization powered by advances in refrigeration, telecommunications, shipping, and transportation. The result was a phenomenal explosion of wealth at the expense of those with limited access to capital and whose only link to the global economy was the sale of their labor. The growing inequality between rich and poor ultimately led to widespread dissatisfaction which resulted in the abandonment of traditional political norms and the adoption of new ideologies, fascism and communism, which channeled that dissatisfaction into acceptance of authoritarian rule. That inequality also led to the Great Depression.
Similarly, the technological revolutions of the 1980s and 1990s led to the creation of fabulous wealth–think Gates, Musk, Jobs, and Zuckerberg. But that wealth was accumulated by tapping into the labor markets of poor states such as China and Vietnam, leading to a massive loss of manufacturing jobs in the developed world. Those unemployed by the 2nd wave of globalization are the ones who abandoned traditional political norms, not only in the US, but in India, Hungary, Italy, France, Sweden, Denmark, and the Cech Republic. They have reasons to be angry.
The pattern of the early 20th century is repeating because the conditions are roughly similar. And, I suspect, the outcome will be the same: economic collapse and war.
The question for me is how do I respond to this situation? My gut instinct is to resist as Trump attempts to create a White, Male, and Christian Republic. I should resist any attempts to cut Obamacare, Social Security, health and safety regulations, and the proposed deportations. These are the issues that Trump used to secure the support to win the election. My suspicion is that those who supported Mr. Trump did not believe that he would truly implement those policies. But they knew exactly who Mr. Trump was: a person who cheated on his taxes, who assaulted women and bragged about his conquests, who punished anyone who did not support him, and who showed little regard for the rule of law. He will, I am certain, insure that everyone appointed to his government will share the same contempt for integrity and lawfulness. Those who voted for Mr. Trump cannot plead ignorance of who he was and how he defined his interests as the single guide for public policy. They knew what they were buying when they voted.
I fear, however, that, for the next two years, resistance will be futile. So I think there should be a second course of action, a course of action which deeply offends my sensibilities as a civic person. The Democrats should simply withdraw from the process of governing. It will be a huge waste of time and, ultimately, counterproductive. The Democrats should simply sit in Congress and refuse to vote or participate in any hearings. Those who supported Mr. Trump should live in the world they voted for. And with tariffs, deportations, and the lack of income security and health insurance, they can figure out how to survive. That economic collapse is inevitable given the obscene inequalities of power and wealth that Trump’s Administration will foster.
Then the Republican Party will have to decide whether it cares more about the Constitution than raw power. And the American people might learn to appreciate the idea of Justice and Equality and to temper their infatuation with unaccountable freedom.
In 1935, Sinclair Lewis published a book entitled It Can’t Happen Here about the election of a Fascist President in the United States. It is a creepy read (and not a particularly good book, but I do not think that Lewis really wanted to write great book–just a book with an important warning to Americans. Americans very rarely think about Fascism in the US, but that is due to willful amnesia. Former President Trump’s rally in Madison Square Garden reminded some of the Nazi rally that was held there in February 1939.
Nazi Rally at Madison Square Garden, 20 February 1939
The Nazi movement grew out of the virulently racist period after the Civil War that spawned the Jim Crow laws that institutionally segregated African-Americans. We are familiar with the images of the Ku Klux Klan, but there was a more explicit movement marrying fascism with institutionalized racism which was known as the Black Legion:
“The Black Legion was a spinoff of the so-called Second Ku Klux Klan, which flourished in the 1920s, fusing anti-Catholicism and antisemitism with anti-Black racism. Strongest in the North — with 500,000 members in Ohio alone — it fell apart by the decade’s end in the face of internal scandals and public denunciations. A doctor in Bellaire, Ohio, named William Shepard founded the Black Legion in 1924. He painted KKK robes black and added pirate imagery and an even greater obsession with militarism and secrecy. By 1935 the Black Legion had grown to hundreds of thousands of members nationwide, largely in the Upper Midwest but spreading to at least 21 states. No one really knows how big it was.”
The Regalia of the Black Legion
The Black Legion grew as Fascism became prevalent in Europe in the early 20th Century. It was a dynamic movement, starting with the first Fascist state in Italy in 1920 (although one could argue that Hungary was actually the first after the collapse of the Soviet Republic of Hungary founded by Béla Kun). By 1940, the only European states not ruled by a fascist party were Great Britain and Switzerland (one could argue that the Swiss worked closely with the Nazis). It was an amazing transformation in the space of only 20 years, counterbalanced by the emergence of the communist brand of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union.
Map of Fascist regimes in Europe in 1940
As Americans vote today, we should all be reminded of the Fascist history in the US. It is not necessarily a fluke in American culture, but rather a persistent presence. It can happen here.
Israel continues to force Palestinians to leave northern Gaza. Mondoweiss reports:
“Israel’s siege and offensive on northern Gaza have been ongoing for 20 days, as part of what has been described as the implementation of Israel’s ‘Generals’ Plan,’ which aims to forcibly depopulate northern Gaza through deliberate starvation and extermination. Although the Generals’ Plan doesn’t include plans for settler colonization of the area after its ethnic cleansing, far-right Israeli politicians and settler groups have been advocating for settling Gaza since December of last year.
“On Monday, Israelis rallied at Kibbutz Be’eri 3 kilometers away from Gaza’s fence demanding to be allowed to settle in the Strip. The rally was attended by several Israeli ministers, according to Israeli media. Reports indicated that some 700 Israeli families at the event had signed up to move to the prospective Israeli settlements in Gaza.
“Northern Gaza was home to some 700,000 Palestinians before October 7, 2023. According to estimates, some 200,000 Palestinians continue to live in the area, which includes Jabalia, Beit Lahia, Twam, Sheikh Zayed, and Beit Hanoun.”
The “Generals’ Plan refers to a plan devised by Israeli Major General Giora Eiland, although parts of the plan have always been part of Netanyahu’s overall strategy in the Gaza. The plan, however, is most explicit on the forced relocation of Palestinians to southern Gaza. Middle East Eye reports:
“Once Palestinians have been removed from northern Gaza, which the plan anticipates will take a week, the second phase can proceed: the transformation of northern Gaza into a closed military zone.
“The area will, says the plan, be subject to a ‘full and tight blockade, which includes preventing movement to and from it, and preventing the entry of supplies, including food, fuel and water’.
“Anyone remaining will be treated as a combatant. The plan’s YouTube video states that the Hamas operatives who remain can choose to ‘surrender or die of starvation’. After that, ‘it will be possible to enter and cleanse the area of Gaza City with almost no enemy’.”
Middle East Eye interviewed Abdullah al-Muqayid, a resident of Northern Gaza, who eventually left for the south. The report is chilling:
“After an interrogation that lasted until sunset, the Israeli army ordered the residents to evacuate to the southern Gaza Strip. However, reluctant to leave northern Gaza entirely, they moved to the adjacent Gaza City instead.
“‘One of the phrases the soldiers told us was, ‘Go south; you will never return to the north. The north will be ours, and we will build settlements there,'” he said.
‘There were martyrs and wounded people whom no one could help along the way’
“But we came to Gaza City. Along the way, there was a massive number of soldiers and tanks as far as the eye could see, as if they were invading a country, not merely civilians and unarmed individuals. We saw the bodies of martyrs on the ground, with dogs mauling them.”
“Muqayid managed to leave Gaza City, but he had to leave his elderly mother behind.
“She remained in Jabalia; she cannot leave, she cannot walk such a long distance and face the humiliation and insults we faced.”
The “Generals’ Plan” is not official policy of the Israeli government at this point, but The Times of Israel reports that in a recent meeting between US Secretary of State Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Prime Minister refused to rule it out publicly:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his top aides sidestepped US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s request during a meeting Tuesday to publicly clarify that Israel is not seeking to lay siege to northern Gaza, a US official tells The Times of Israel.
Netanyahu and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer insisted during the meeting that Israel is not implementing the so-called General’s Plan aimed at isolating northern Gaza and argued that claims to the contrary have been detrimental to Israel’s public image, the US official says.
Blinken urged Netanyahu to clarify this publicly, but he and his aides demurred, the official adds.”
The Generals’ Plan is a clear violation of the Geneva Accords which forbids the forcible displacement of civilians in any occupied area. It is also completely inconsistent with US foreign policy which still calls for a “two-state” solution to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. But Netanyahu likely sees the coming months as a window of opportunity: Americans are transfixed by the upcoming presidential election and the period between election day and the inauguration is a very difficult time to make significant foreign policy changes. Further, Netanyahu probably thinks that, if Israel quickly makes the annexation of northern Gaza a fait accompli, a President Trump would approve and a President Harris would be powerless to dislodge Israel until after inauguration, at which point US opposition would be moot.
The Generals’ Plan is not possible without US continued support. That support has two components: massive military and financial assistance; and the US missile interceptor systems which prevents Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran from inflicting heavy civilian casualties in Israel. Both are indispensable to the Generals’ Plan, but the US protective shield gives Netanyahu the freedom to do whatever he, or his right- wing cabinet members, Ben-Givr and Smotrich, want.
The US is a clear accomplice in this crime. If Netanyahu had to worry about significant civilian casualties (on the scale of the near 43,000 identified Palestinians bodies, not to mention the bodies buried under the rubble in Gaza), I doubt that he would currently be bombing the Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran with such abandon.
This circumstance places the US in a very delicate moral dilemma. In order to restrain Netanyahu, the US should lift its protective missile shield and allow civilian casualties at a scale necessary to change Netanyahu’s calculations. But that tactic is morally indefensible: innocent civilians cannot be used as a diplomatic tool. The US needs to continue to shield Israeli civilians.
The alternative is to use the military and financial support as a bludgeon. Netanyahu would then have to calculate how long he could continue the military operations without the infusion of weapons and wealth. That course of action lacks the immediacy of the costs of civilian casualties, but Netanyahu has got to start worrying about the long-term capabilities of Israel without US support.
In order to implement this tactic, US President Biden should immediately announce the suspension of US support unless Netanyahu publicly commits to no annexations of land in the Gaza and in the West Bank and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. It is long past time for the US to indulge Netanyahu’s political survival which is dependent on Ben-Givr and Smotrich. And the US needs to more vigorously pursue its own foreign policy interest which is a peace based on the two-state solution.
World Politics News 