Resistance- Then and Now

5-3-17  (See Addenda 5-9)

I was watching a  series on Television, “WWII in Color” which depicts various theaters of war and battles with the realism of color added to the old monochrome films.  It’s pretty comfortable sitting on my couch feeling part of a powerful military that would vanquish the forces of evil, knowing that I can immerse myself in the drama without the danger of being killed -- or worse.

 

Some of the segments feature the resistance, a term that had a specific meaning among the various countries occupied by the Axis forces, most commonly the Nazis.  And then, when I switched the  channel, to CNBC I heard, “Hillary Clinton has announced that she is part of the resistance.”  I hadn’t completely shaken off being back in Vichy France or Amsterdam, among those who were planning ways to sabotage and to kill the enemy.  I'm still ensconced in their hideout, as they listened to the coded messages on the BBC on their short wave radios covered so as not to be seen by those who could have reported them.

To be in the resistance did not just mean that you hated the oppressors, but that you have made a decision to risk not only your own life, but that of your friends and family to take action to change the course of history.  Those post-war films depicted the drama, the thrill of this grand adventure; but they left out the abject fear, the failure of the sphincter muscles when a strange vehicle pulled up to the safe house, and car doors opened with the sound of approaching footsteps.

Of course, I would have been with these brave people who fought oppression, sure I would have been, even if I weren’t one of the people targeted for death.  I would have done it out of bravery, out of courage, out of decency.  Certainly I would have.

The "resistance" in occupied Europe was against the Nazi organization led by Adolph Hitler; the one in the U.S. today is against Donald J. Trump  and his Republican followers.  Many fear that Trump has some of the characteristics of Hitler, expressed by Professor Tim Snyder in his this book, “On Tyranny”  a warning that we should not take this danger lightly.  Here’s one of his suggestions from the Washington Post review linked above:

Make eye contact and small talk with strangers, he encourages; it is part of being a citizen. (“People who were living in fear of repression remembered how their neighbors treated them,” Snyder writes.) Defend American institutions and civil society groups by joining them, advocating for them or even supporting them financially, Snyder urges. (“Institutions do not protect themselves.”)

How much of the aura of the WWII “resistance” is being incorporated into today’s version?  And why is thinking about  this semantic issue important.  While Snyder is not ignoring the risk of Trump becoming a tyrannical dictator, his recommendation to talk to strangers would not be reasonable during the era of the previous resistance, as faking enthusiasm, just could evoke suspicion.  Of course many of those who use that word today may not even know that it meant something quite different in a now hazy world war that ended seven decades ago.  Hitler, by the time he had become Chancellor of Germany in 1933, had already inflicted what Trump had to his political opponents -- destroyed them -— but their was a difference.  With Hitler it was not figuratively by  insults,  but for real, with a bullet through the head.

Hitler had fought in a war, and had incorporated an ideology of racial superiority that was not that rare,  his picking up much of this from the United States.  His first hundred days of Chancellor, he had already abolished any constitutional constraints on his absolute power that was a true fascist coup, the most ruthless and vicious in modern times.

For those with a subscription to the N.Y. Times or who want to invest a dollar for a month trial, this article by a person who lived through Hitler’s first hundred days describes his reign of terror.  Both men claimed they could kill a random person on a main thoroughfare with impunity, but only Hitler actually did it, with a clear message that the choice was either to join him or probable death 

Donald Trump has taken his synthetic personality, his scripted reality show persona, to the point of damaging what the President of the United States has come to mean.  Yet, he has neither the background, education or intellect to actually lead an autocratic revolution.   His background is not that of Carl Marx or Friedrich Nietzsche, who spent their life exploring history and ideas to formulate their own path to a utopia that justified the destruction of the existing order.  Added to this list of who Donald J. Trump is not, I would put Lenin and Hitler.  Trump is not one who has incorporated such a coherent ideology with which to merge his personal aggrandizement.

What Hitler did not have to face was a two hundred year-old tradition of due process, of the rule of law transcending any given individual, even one who holds the office of President.  We are in a strange space at this moment in time, where  fame, or celebrity, transcends the substance of an individuals intellect and character -— at least for winning votes to be elected to policital office, and as we have discovered, this includes the highest in the land.

Unlike Hitler, Donald Trump’s candidate persona has been stymied by one of the three branches of government that were defined by our founders — the legislature.   He can tweet all night long, but without a majority of both houses of Congress, all constituted by individuals who must win a majority of voters to maintain their positions, his power is limited.

Personally, my reaction to the last three months is, if I dare express it, elation.  As of now the center has held,  there will be no budget based on illusion and fear, and even if the President does harm, it does not look like it will be irreversible or fatal.  Trump’s childlike spontaneity, while certainly not presidential, is a type of gift to his opponents.  It may have been better if we had as president someone with actual knowledge of the vast complexity of government, but maybe we are fortunate to have one who can say, “No one knew how complicated health care it” or that “This job is harder than I had expected.”

 His spontaneity includes confirming what many had said from the beginning, he is abysmally unqualified to be the leader of this most complex and powerful engine of government.

My sense of comfort may be a relief from my foreboding of doom after the election,  or else the realization that this impulsive man in the oval office does have a child like mentality, that as of this moment has been held in check.  I also realize that the challenges that face one in his position are largely intractable,  with no solution available outside of irrational utopias.  An example is the poverty and oppression among women and children in north central Africa and Afghanistan.Trump's free association mode of communicating with the world, illustrates that not only does he not have any answers, but neither do those who are steeped in a standard model of world affairs.  

As of the beginning of the second hundred days of the Trump administration, the racist rabble rousers that animated his rallies, who formed his base, have receeded.  He actually believed that universal health care could be provided for all Americans with no limits.  Now he has learned it’s not possible, but addressing the issue is still far beyond his ken.  The months to come will be interesting, as we watch this person with a position that presupposes deep understanding of our government and culture, first starts to understand how little he knows.   

Donald Trump, despite his bluster, is an emotionally fragile individual, whose election defines a new era of sensationalist and vacuous communication.  It’s though he was destined to demonstrate what this country has become by being elected president.  His refusal to acknowledge that the revoking of ACA would eliminate the federal guarantee of coverage for pre-existing disease, is not subterfuge, but a demonstration that he can’t grasp that defining policy means some people gain while others suffer. With ACA this coverage is a federal mandate, while with the Republican substitute just passed, it is a state option.  The evidence is that President Trump doesn't grasp this complex dimension of what was originally a limited association of "sovereign" country-states. 

Unlike Hitler’s first hundred days, where he became an absolute dictator, Trump has deferred to the Judiciary and the Legislative branches, and is left to gathering his “deplorables”  at rallies.   But, his call of “who will pay for this wall?” will no longer elicit the crowd’s response, “Mexico.” 

To describe opposition to President Trump as “resistance” will make the previous meaning fade, as that word was used when the only way to subvert an alien power that occupied their country was placing one’s life on the line.  Our constitutional system is holding, and our weapon need not be sabotage or violence against one who has distorted the obligations and authority of this office that has evolved over previous centuries. Newspapers are still publishing, oppositions web sites are still on the internet, we are still a free society based on law.  In this country a President does not have final authority over policy, and as of this moment there is no evidence that Donald Trump is so maniacal as to want to destroy the country or the world.

Tim Snyder does a service to warn us of the dangers of  tyranny, as he has spent his adult life understanding how this horror consumed Europe in WWII,  yet we could go too far if we fail to see the resiliency of the governmental, legal and social structures that have evolved over the centuries of this country’s existence.  Our founders never claimed to provide a constitution that would ensure all of our leaders would be enlightened or wise.  They did hope to create a structure that would withstand the tenure of a President who lacked these qualities.

 As of this day, our constitutional system seems to be up to the task; and to foment a resistance which was the only choice against fascist despotism, could actually escalate a response that would degrade the rule of law that has been our gift.  It was the absence of this structure that provided no choice for patriots in that early resistance, one that should not be diluted by the protests marches that are part of a constitution that is still capable of addressing our current challenge.
------------------------------------
5-9-2017

What you have just read was what I believed, actually hoped for, only a week ago.  On this day The Director of the FBI,  James Comey was discharged from his position, based on no substantive error or breach of procedures.  While there is a deputy in the line of succession Trump said what he will be seeking a replacement.  This will certainly, in keeping with all of his appointees be based on personal loyalty.

This is similar to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern N.Y. District, a highly respected effective non-partisan, after being told by President Elect that he would be reappointed, being summary fired without any reason.  We finally have a President who will use his authority, as I had written in this article that President Obama must do if Comey refused to revise his letter to Congress,  that H.R.C. claims lost the election for her.   Not only that, Clinton is now subject to being indicted for her laxity with secret communications, malfeasance that was ignored by Comey's  statement that "no prosecutor would bring such a case" --not that they couldn't. This conclusion does not limit the new director or A.G. Sessions.

I wrote two article on the liberal Dailykos relating to those events. Here's my first after Comey sent the letter to Congress, Pardoning Hillary Clinton Does Not Imply Guilt,  Note the hostility and ridicule in the comments from the left wing website Dailykos.  Now, HRC will face the specter of being tried for a federal crime.  The honemoon between Trump and the previous adminstration only lasted days, and now The President and his Secretary of State or on his hate list.  The next day I wrote the following,Washington Post poll reports Clinton in serious danger of losing ,  This was attacked even more vehemently as if my pointing out reality showed that I was opposed to her winning the election.  After getting a barrage of insults I responded with this comment:

The "full blown issue” has been made by Comey not by my suggestion for the President.   Comey's letter has been interpreted by low information voters that his recommendation not to indict could be reversed,  The President has an obligation to enforce the regulation that all associated with federal law enforcement do not influence elections.   This was not followed, and there is a chance, perhaps very small, as most commenters here want to believe,, but perhaps larger, --— enough to shift some key states.

This is an historic election in the degree of animosity, and we can’t be sure how close the polling is to the actual voting until it happens.  We’ve never had two candidates so hated by the other side, and often by those who must choose among the least of evils.
This is analogous to Truman firing MacArthur..  He was condemned for it at the time, but now lionized because it showed that the democratically elected president has authority over Generals --- and even FBI directors.

Ironically, the weakness of Obama-Clinton is one of Trumps main arguments.   It’s strange to me, that my suggestion of a way to counter this, is condemned as being an affirmation of this accusation by Trump.

   

My essay only provided amusement for the the Dailykos liberals who had become a mob -- and they identified me as not belonging.  I had not only pointed out what the Washington Post poll indicated, but explained the meaning of it. 

While there is some satisfaction that I made the effort, (and I haven't seen any article making the two points that I did,) I still failed.  Even if Dailykos had latched on to it,  Barack Obama,just isn't made of the stuff to call his subordinate on the carpet as I suggested. Even the pardon which could have been done with with ease was not what he is made of.  He was coasting to ending his term on a high note, and only criticized Comey, mildly, several days after the release.    


As of this day, this firing of our top federal law enforcer to be replaced by a Trump crony, we have moved further towards the possibility of tyranny, that I had wishfully hoped was decreasing. My base argument was that the vast administrative structure of our government would provide the resistance to the impulses of Donald J. Trump, but as long as he can discharge anyone who is not loyal to him personally, and has a rubber stamp majority in the Senate, he doesn't have to engage in messy violence to create a government that acknowledges that he is "our leader." .    

.