Editorial: Divisiveness Is All Donald Trump Has Left

Donald Trump affirmed this Fourth of July weekend that he has nothing in his campaign bag of tricks other than what worked for him in 2016: the stoking of the country’s racial and cultural divide. America is struggling with a pandemic, a crisis of racism, and a national security threat involving the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump, however, chose to focus his speeches instead on his base’s obsession with saving Confederate statues.

When he spoke, Trump covered all of the dog whistle bases for his diehard supporters. He knows that for those who showed up at the fireworks display at Mount Rushmore, or at the Fourth of July celebration in Washington, D.C., COVID-19 is overblown, racism doesn’t exist in the U.S., and the recently reported issue of Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan is a hoax. The threat that keeps Trump’s base up at night is the threat to their Confederate monuments.

“Our past is not a burden to be cast away,” Trump said at the White House’s “Salute to America” event on the White House South Lawn. “We will never allow an angry mob to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample on our freedoms. We will safeguard our values, traditions, customs, and beliefs.”

Imagine for a moment if any other president in recent memory had been speaking instead. Imagine a president who cared about his country more than he cared about titillating his base of supporters; who was empathetic to the country’s craving for leadership, reassurance, and hope in its current state of fear, grief, injustice, and division.

The president’s speech might have gone more like this:

“Not one of our people is a burden to be cast away… We will never again allow a more powerful group of people to tear down another group of people, erase their legitimacy, let unjustices against them stand, or trample on their freedoms. We will safeguard their well-being, traditions, customs, and right to exist in peace in the United States of America.”

Or this:

“Our people— not one of them— is a statistic to be cast away and disregarded. We will never allow a deadly virus to tear apart our nation, and we will never allow politics to erase the legitimacy of science, indoctrinate our constituents against it, or trample on the right of others to be safe and remain healthy. We will safeguard our people, their health, and their lives.”

Or possibly this:

“Our soldiers are not burdens to be cast away. We will never allow a bad actor to place a bounty on their heads, and we will never ignore intelligence of a threat, demonstrate a lack of concern for our troops, or place personal interests above the safety of Americans abroad. We will safeguard our service people, our national security, and our global leadership.”

But Donald Trump did not speak out against the racism in the U.S. that is behind the ongoing demonstrations across the country. He did not say anything in support of those for whom injustice is a part of their daily lives. Instead, he defended the very artifacts that stand for that oppression, making it clear what the “values, traditions, customs, and beliefs” are for the MAGAs.

And Donald Trump did not seek to reassure Americans that his administration was doing all it could to help protect them from COVID-19. He did not spell out or model the behaviors Americans need to adopt to help slow the spread and save lives. Instead, in the midst of nearly 3 million cases and 132,000 deaths in the U.S., he not only downplayed the seriousness of the virus, he continued his narrative of lies, endangering those who believed him, and said this:

“Now we have tested almost 40 million people. By so doing, we show cases — 99% of which are totally harmless — results that no other country can show because no other country has testing that we have. Not in terms of the numbers, or in terms of the quality.”

Our commander-in-chief did not indicate outrage at the discovery that a Russian intelligence unit had offered the Taliban bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He didn’t condemn Vladimir Putin. He didn’t seek to reassure Americans—particularly the soldiers’ families—that he’d get to the bottom of the issue. He didn’t even mention it.

Yet the unmasked, tightly packed-together crowds went wild, covering each other with their droplets as they cheered. And when, in a week or two, there’s a surge in the number of COVID-19 cases, as there almost certainly will be, they will blame the Black Lives Matter demonstrators for the spread.

Unlike many other Americans, the attendees who disregarded a potentially deadly virus to support their president this past weekend were not there to hear uniting words of comfort; they were not seeking reassurance that the nation would heal, or that the troops would be safe. They were there for the validation of their hate-saturated, fear-riddled, anger-filled view of the world that they knew they could count on from Donald Trump. They were there for the emboldenment fix. Donald Trump knew it, and he gave it to them in return for their adulation. Should they begin to seek substance, integrity, or leadership in their presidential candidate, Donald Trump will be out of luck, because his bag of divisiveness-stoking tricks is all he has.

Trump’s Mt. Rushmore 4th of July speech: Protesters want to ‘wipe out our history’ | DW News [2020-07-04]

Trump Warns Of ‘Left-Wing Cultural Revolution’ During Mount Rushmore Speech | TODAY [2020-07-04]

“Governing by Chaos:” Soleimani Killed, Trump Team Struggles to Define “Imminent Threat”

There are 297 days until the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and our current president, Donald J. Trump, continues, as Senator Kirsten Giliibrand (D-NY) puts it, “to govern by chaos.”

Early last Friday morning, January 3, Trump, without notifying Congress, ordered a drone strike to kill General Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful general, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people.

Trump first said that he had ordered the strike in retribution, at least in part, for the death of an American contractor at an Iraqi military base, possibly by Iranian-backed forces. In order for the strike to have been legal without Trump’s consulting Congress, however, there must be evidence that the strike was called to fend off an imminent threat.

Consequently, the Pentagon was quick to tell the public that the strike was intended to stop an imminent attack on Americans.

Following the strike, Trump threatened on Twitter that if Iran retaliated, the U.S. would “quickly and fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner.”

“If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets,” he tweeted, “The U.S. has targeted 52 Iranian sites — some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”

After the media, Trump’s advisors, and lawmakers in Trump’s own party, quickly pointed out that destroying a nation’s cultural sites would be a war crime, Trump responded by saying, “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people, and we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

But…Yes, yes it does. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured the world that the administration would remain within the law.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, too, rushed to walk back Trump’s threat, saying “We will follow the laws of armed conflict.”

Iran’s response happened on Tuesday, when it launched more than 12 missiles aimed at two Iraqi bases holding U.S. troops. There were no American casualties, and there is evidence that Iran warned Iraq of the strikes in advance, purportedly so that Americans would know they were coming. At first, many believed that as long as Trump didn’t further escalate, things might remain quiet for now. Since then, however, Iran has pledged “severe revenge” on the U.S.

The administration refuses to provide evidence of an imminent attack by Iran, but continues to work to convince the public that Trump’s drone strike was justified. Sidestepping the question of “imminence,” they point to Soleimani’s previous actions, saying that they indicate that Soleimani would continue to act in the same way. They also claim that eliminating Soleimani was part of a larger strategy.

Previous administrations, it should be noted, had strategically chosen not to eliminate Soleimani, not because they supported him, but because of possible other chain reactions Soleimani’s demise could set into motion — such as a war.

The administration’s larger strategy was what Senate lawmakers had expected to learn more about during a national security briefing on Wednesday evening. They were disappointed, however— insulted, even —when they received no more insight than what they had already read in the news. Lawmakers on both sides were angered at the implication that they didn’t need to know, and were told that to debate the appropriateness of a military intervention in Iran would be unpatriotic.

While this was all unfolding, former national security advisor John Bolton, who had previously complied with the White House edict not to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, said that if subpoenaed, he would testify before the Senate.

Trump, as expected, said he would be fine with Bolton testifying, but that they should respect “privilege.” In other words, Bolton should only be allowed to say what Trump allowed him to say.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi continues to hold the articles of impeachment until, as she says, she can be assured of a fair and impartial trial in the Senate. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said he has the votes to go ahead with a trial, even without the articles (and without witnesses — or impartiality).

Congress has just voted in favor of restricting the president’s war powers against Iran, meaning he must get authorization from Congress. The Senate is also working on a similar resolution. This may ultimately amount to nothing more than a strong message to Donald Trump, since he can veto the resolution. Nevertheless, it’s a message.

Senator Tammy Duckworth said, “Is America safer today than before trump made this rash decision (to kill Soleimani)? My answer is No.”

Senator Rand Paul echoed that sentiment, saying “…Now the whole country of Iran is consumed with revenge… If you’re asking yourself, ‘Will there be attacks on America?’ I think there’s much more likely to be attacks now with his death. But you also have to ask, if anybody thinks there’s a possibility that diplomacy would work, how’s it going to work when you kill the major general of another country?”

As we hurtle toward the 2020 presidential election, another question to consider: “Is America safer today than it was before Trump was elected?” Chaos cannot govern a country that remains free.

Iran’s Top General Killed In US Airstrike, Could ‘Put Americans At Risk’ | TODAY [2020-01-03]

Iran attacks U.S. forces as Trump prepares to address crisis | CBS News [2020-01-08]