What Hath Donald Wrought?

           Donald Trump won the Presidency on a promise to “Make America Great Again” and in his inaugural address he announced that the “American carnage” was going to stop. Not only has he failed in both of these endeavors, we are currently experiencing a multi-dimensional carnage rivaling World War II.  Not only have we had over 100,000 Americans die in the last three months with tens of thousands of more deaths on their way, but we now have an economy rapidly descending into what might be a second Great Depression and crowds protesting racial injustice in over 150 of the nation’s cities.  The sad thing is that none of this should have happened or would have happened without the efforts of our President.

            In fairness, that might be a little exaggeration. To be sure, scores of thousands of deaths would have been avoided had the President not disbanded the pandemic advisory group within the National Security Council and trashed the pandemic defense plan left to him by the Obama administration or had he simply taken the actions to combat the spread of the coronavirus as and when he was advised to do so.  Just as surely, the economic abyss into which our nation’s economy is now sinking could have been avoided had the President only followed the advice of his public health advisers and contained the virus before trying to restart the nation’s economy. Admittedly, however, it’s unfair to simply blame him for the protests and riots that are taking place in cities all across the country.  They are primarily the result of scores of years of social injustice that has been visited upon persons of color; the President’s actions only served to raise their latent despair to the boiling point. They include his reversal of President Obama’s policy of not providing weapons of war to police forces; his encouragement of police officers not to be respectful of persons in their custody; and his efforts to suppress the votes of people of color. Thus, while the President did not initiate the feelings anger and despair that black and brown Americans have experienced since this nation was founded, he certainly has taken actions which heighten those feelings.

             Not content to allow the current protests to work their way toward a peaceful and productive resolution, the President has embarked on a campaign to crush the protests using overwhelming force.  Thus, in a conference call on Monday with the nation’s governors he insisted that they “must get tougher” with the protesters.  He went on to say that “You have to dominate or you’ll look like a bunch of jerks.”  He even offered to provide U.S. military forces to aid in their efforts and suggested that he would deploy those forces on his own if they were not requested. Just in case the governors remained in doubt as to what the President had in mind, he ordered a battalion within the 82nd Airborne Division in full riot gear and accompanied by Apache attack helicopters, to break up a peaceful rally in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House.  If this type of action is repeated across the nation, it will certainly result in more deaths and destruction in the short-term and do nothing to resolve the problem which has given rise to the current protests. 

            While the idea of crushing a civil protest solves nothing, many of the actions being routinely taken by police departments are equally foolish. First, there are real shortcomings to the recent trend to militarize police departments. A police officer dressed like Darth Vader conveys “I don’t like you and I don’t trust you.”  The message a police officer’s appearance should convey is “I am a part of your community and my job is to protect you and your property.”  Thus, unless and until violence erupts, police officers should be wearing their happy faces and leaving their face masks and body armor out of sight.  Secondly, curfews should not be imposed simply because there is a large crowd airing their grievances.  By imposing a curfew, particularly an early curfew, a city is almost insuring that there will be a confrontation between the protesters and the police, which is the very thing it should be trying to avoid.  More importantly, there should be an effort on the part of both police officers and local officials to elicit the grievances of the protesters and engage them in a dialogue. Hiding out in city hall and sending police officers in riot gear to confront protesters simply sends the message that the government is not interested in addressing the protesters grievances and raises the likelihood of violence and destructive behavior.

            This does not mean that a city should ignore the possibility that some protesters will be sufficiently exercised to commit acts of violence and/or vandalism or that others bent on mischief will try to take advantage of the chaos accompanying a civil protest.  Police officers must be on the lookout for destructive activity and be ready and equipped to summon back up forces to put a fast halt to such incidents. The important thing is to be prepared to address unlawful conduct while not provoking it.

            It is only a little curious that a President, who happily delegated to the nation’s governors the task of overcoming a virus that has already taken over 100,000 American lives and has brought the nation’s economy to a near halt, seems unwilling to trust those same governors with the task of dealing with protests within their states by citizens with legitimate grievances. The potential danger to life and property arising out of civil protests does not even begin to approach the level damage that has already been caused by the pandemic.  There is also a fundamental difference in these two threats.  The coronavirus does not differ from state to state; nor does the methodology and equipment needed to combat it. On the other hand, while the protests taking place around the country were all triggered by the murder of George Floyd, the policies and culture of law enforcement agencies differ from state to state and city to city, which means that the relationships between the residents and law enforcement agencies in each community will be different.  For this reason, a single national approach to dealing with the grievances of the protesters is not likely to be appropriate in all cases.

             The President’s proposed strategy for dealing with the protests might strike most people as being irrational and, in most cases, counter-productive. That’s because most people don’t see things through the eyes of our President. His initial reaction is that if protests are allowed to continue, they will impede, if not totally frustrate, his efforts to restart the nation’s economy which is critical to his chances of winning a second term.  Conversely, another few hundred dead bodies is not likely to stand in the way of his re-election. Secondly, the President is always looking for a way to rally his supporters; and what could be more effective than fanning the flames of an “us v. them” confrontation. In addition, the President is also strongly of the belief that it is of little satisfaction to wield power if you can’t abuse it.  He shares this philosophy with many members of the nation’s police unions who act as if they are above the law.  It may only be a coincidence but, on the very day the President exhorted the nation’s governors to “dominate” the protesters, he extended an invitation to Vladimir Putin to attend this fall’s meeting of the G-7 nations, an invitation that went out without consulting other G-7 members and over the objections of the British and Canadian Prime Ministers.

             Adopting a strategy of forcibly crushing the protests seems to be an effort by the President to cast himself as a “law and order” leader. This was the strategy that Richard Nixon successfully employed when he first ran for President in 1968 amid the protests over the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy and the misbegotten Korean War. There is no question that both liberals and conservatives alike feel threatened by chaos which tends to accompany civil protests and that a “law and order” theme (and its corollary -- “my opponent is soft on crime”) has widespread appeal.  Nevertheless, this strategy is likely to be a hard sell even for a con man as accomplished as our President.  That’s because the President not only relishes chaos, he may be the nation’s single largest source of chaos, spreading misinformation, constantly contradicting the members of his own administration and regularly violating the nation’s customs, traditions and laws.

            Now confronting the nation are three separate and distinct challenges. A few weeks ago, I questioned whether the COVID-19 pandemic would trigger another depression which could ignite the social revolution that Bernie Sander’s rhetoric seemed unable to inspire. Sadly, the COVID-19 virus, which public health officials had hoped would be contained by the end of May, is still raging on and is actually gaining strength in a dozen states. That’s because the vast majority of states began relaxing their social distancing restrictions prematurely and the large assemblies of protesters are likely to further accelerate the spread of the virus.  While the American public will have ample reason to be distressed over the manner in which their state and federal governments have handled the pandemic, that alone is not going to foment a revolution. However, when conjoined with the economic distress of a depression and the despair arising from their governments’ unwillingness to address legitimate social grievances, the possibility of a revolution cannot be lightly dismissed.

             As I had feared, the month of May, which should have been used to suppress and contain the virus, was largely squandered by the federal government’s unwillingness to take charge of procuring the equipment and supplies needed to fight the virus and as its misguided efforts to get a head-start on resuscitating the nation’s economy.  This path was followed because the President was assuming that the sooner the process of reopening the nation’s businesses was started, the sooner the nation’s economy would come roaring back.  Contrary to the President’s belief, this nation is not an industrial powerhouse, producing goods needed around the world.  Over two-thirds of the U.S. economy is based upon personal consumption, principally of goods manufactured abroad and personal services provided by U.S. residents. Thus, until consumers feel safe in venturing out into the public, the largest sector of the nation’s economy is going to limp along.  This means that the country’s economic recovery will be a slow process with many business failures (particularly in the hospitality and entertainment sectors) even though a few sectors (like financial services and technology) might recover quickly.  Thus, unless the Congress comes up with another major stimulus package, many of the over 42 million workers who have already lost their jobs will remain unemployed and will become economically distressed. 

             The frustration and despair over income and wealth inequality and racial injustice brought to the fore by the murder of George Floyd will undoubtedly add pressure toward a popular uprising that could dismantle a form of constitutional government that has generally served this nation well for over 200 years.  That murder effectively tore away the scab that has been hiding a long festering sore borne by the nation’s growing back and brown populations.  The depth and seriousness of this problem is apparent from four facts: (1) the protests have erupted overnight in over 150 American cities, with each protest involving thousands of citizens; (2) the protests have gone on for nine straight days with no sign of ending; (3) the protesters have persisted while knowing that their participation is exposing them to the coronavirus which continues unchecked in each of the cities involved; and (4) the protests are continuing even though the issues which gave rise to Mr. Floyd death are being addressed through criminal prosecutions of the four police officers involved and an investigation into the practices and training of the Minneapolis Police Department.  Thus, the message seems clear: much more will have to be done before the current civil unrest is brought to a close; and while it persists the virus will continue to spread and the economy will remain in a state of paralysis.

             What is required now are swift and substantial actions by the U.S. Congress.  This will require a bi-partisan effort which seems highly unlikely in view of the two recently announced Senate investigations:  the Homeland Security Committee’s investigation into Beau Biden’s relationship with Burisma and the Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the Obama’s administration’s investigation of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election. Neither of these investigations will address the problems of the nation as they simply appear to be a reprise of the seven House investigations of Hillary Clinton’s involvement with the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.  Sadly, it appears that political partisanship has grown to the point that our government is experiencing what might be fairly characterized a hardening of its political arteries which could lead to its demise.

             Last January the resilience of our political system was tested when the House of Representatives impeached the President and the Republican majority in the Senate almost unanimously voted to dismiss the House’s charges.  At the time, Senator Collins sought to justify her “No” vote saying that, having been impeached, a chastened President Trump would be unlikely to again abuse his authority.  Was this wishful thinking or was it simply the result political sclerosis in which Republican senators have become incapable of considering what might be best for the country?  Since that history altering vote, the President, having once again been given a free-pass for his wrongdoing, has gone on to (a) dismiss no less than four Inspector Generals, (b) cause the Justice Department to change it positions with respect to crimes by two of his former colleagues, (c) ignore the advice of his public health advisers, (d) block efforts of House oversight committees to look into various actions of his administration, and (e) block the publication of John Bolton’s forthcoming (since January) book.  While our current multiple crises may not have been specifically foreseeable at the time of the Senate’s vote, they are nevertheless a direct result of that action.  In this sense, those Senators who voted not to remove the President must share in the blame for the deaths, economic chaos and social unrest that will continue for months to come.

             While saving our Constitutional government is still not out of reach, it will require our elected representatives to begin thinking beyond their next election and start considering the needs of the entire population, not just their political donors. Their first job will be to adopt additional economic assistance for those experiencing economic distress.  So far Mitch McConnell has been cool to the idea of providing additional economic relief to state and local governments, hospitals and those who will continue to be unemployed.  We can only hope that there is still an ounce of true patriotism flowing through his veins.  Also high on the agenda of our elected officials should be tackling racial injustice and income and wealth inequality and investing in the nation’s infrastructure, its citizens and in new technologies.  This will require, among other things, raising taxes as there are surely limits to the nation’s ability to continue to finance its government through deficit spending.  These are not small changes and will require real leadership. It cannot be achieved by a President who has squandered his credibility and has worked to divide the nation.  It makes me wish that Donald Trump had been a man of lesser ambition who would have been content simply selling ice to the Eskimos.