Like by Nancy Ohanian Everyone has to make those decisions for him- or herself. If you've heard me on Nicole Sander's or David Feldman's shows recently, you've probably heard me talking about A French Village, and about how each of us may have to decide where we are on a spectrum that goes from enthusiastic collaboration with fascism to violent resistance to it, just as the characters in the TV series were forced to. History Professor Walter Moss noted that Americans, "never having lived under military occupation by a hostile foreign power... have little appreciation for how complex everyday life could become under such conditions. Although most people would like to think that they would resist the Nazi invaders and not cooperate with them in any way, the reality for occupied peoples-- under the Germans and other occupiers-- was usually much more varied. FV depicts this well. Some collaborated; some cooperated partly; only a small minority engaged in active resistance." It becomes even more nuanced, of course, when it isn't a foreign occupation but a fascist coup we have to decide how to position ourselves for or against. It hasn't come to that yet... but for many ex-Trump staffers, there is a decision they have to make now... or not make. AP reporter Jill Colvin wrote yesterday that "With just weeks left before the Nov. 3 election, now is the moment of truth for current and former Trump administration officials debating whether they, too, should step forward and join the chorus of Republican voices trying to persuade on-the-fence voters to help deny Trump a second term." After all, according to former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, Miles Taylor, Trump was routinely asking aides to break the law, using his former agency for explicitly political purposes, and wanting to maim and shoot migrants trying to cross the southern border. Taylor said that "Those who witnessed the president’s unfitness for office up close have a moral obligation to share their assessment with the electorate."
Other prominent “formers” have spoken out independently-- or are considering it. Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote a scathing book in which he said Trump “saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed” on how to run the government. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis broke a self-imposed vow of silence in June with an op-ed slamming Trump’s response to racial justice protests. He and former director of national intelligence Dan Coats also were quoted extensively in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward calling Trump dangerous and unfit for office. But Mattis and Coats, like former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have refrained from more explicit condemnations, often citing a “duty of silence” or a long tradition of military officials staying out of politics, according to people who’ve spoken with them. Efforts to draw them out are ongoing. While former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen appears disinclined to step forward, there are hopes that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson might be persuaded to comment and that Coats might be urged to say more. And Kelly, a retired four-star general, is said to be on the fence and torn about the decision. “I think that he loves his country and he wants to do what’s best for the country,” said Neumann, who served as Kelly’s deputy chief of staff at DHS and is hopeful he’ll speak out, even as others don’t think it will happen. Officials like Kelly, with long careers and hefty pensions, would seem to have less to lose by doing so than more junior staffers like Olivia Troye, a former counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence who last week joined the campaign against Trump and said she’d be voting for Biden. In a video and interviews, Troye has accused Trump of mishandling the coronavirus and being more concerned about his reelection prospects than saving lives. The White House punched back with an aggressive attack campaign aimed at discrediting her through a barrage of statements, interviews and denunciations from the lectern in the White House briefing room. “These are not profiles in courage, but these are profiles in cowardice,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said of Troye and Taylor, dismissing them as part of a “fringe club of, quote, ‘Never Trumpers’ who are desperate for relevancy.” Taylor said it was clear the White House was “coming after” those who speak out as a warning to others who are considering doing likewise. “The White House knows if they show this is a very costly thing to do they will scare people from going forward,” he said. He added that while more people are still considering coming forward, the White House tactics have worked to some extent-- dissuading one senior official who had been on the cusp of speaking out. Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican strategist who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, stressed that time is running out. “There will be a cottage industry when Trump is out of office of people who say, ‘Oh, I fought from the inside, I fought the good fight, I kept so many bad things from happening.’” he said. “It doesn’t matter. There’s only one moment in time where it matters. And that’s now.” ...Anthony Scaramucci, who turned against the president last year after a short stint as White House communications director, has also been in discussions with those on the fence and is using every channel he can find to spread his message, including a new anti-Trump documentary. “We have to keep the pressure on, and so for me it’s a multimedia approach. It’s radio, it’s podcasts, it’s Twitter, it’s television and it’s movies,” he said. “As a citizen all I’ve tried to do is provide a surgeon general’s warning... This guy is a threat to the institutions of democracy, and I worked for him and I think it’s important to send a signal to other people,” he said, that it’s OK to speak out.
And a lot is going to fall on Biden's shoulders, shoulder's I'm afraid not up to the task. In his NY Times OpEd yesterday, How To Debate Someone Who Lies, psychiatrist Richard Friedman offered Biden some advice: "Don’t waste your time fact-checking the president. If you attempt to counter every falsehood or distortion that Mr. Trump serves up, you will cede control of the debate. And, by trying to correct him, you will paradoxically strengthen the misinformation rather than undermine it. (Research shows that trying to correct a falsehood with truth can backfire by reinforcing the original lie.) Instead, Mr. Biden should use more powerful weapons that will put Mr. Trump on the defensive-- and also tell the audience that the president is a dishonest narrator. The first weapon may be the most effective: humor and ridicule. A derisive joke can defuse tense and outrageous situations. In 2007, for example, protesters dressed as clowns confronted a 'white power' march in Charlotte, N.C., holding signs that read 'wife power' and throwing white flour in the air. It made the white nationalists look ridiculous and avoided a violent confrontation, which would have served the interests of the racists." I doubt Biden would dare, but he should only refer to Trump as "Donald," which drives him up the wall and would cause a complete crackup tomorrow night. Trump Biden Debate by Nancy Ohanian Last night I was talking with Mike Siegel, the progressive working to replace Trump ally Michael McCaul in a gerrymandered central Texas district. Defeating Trumpist enablers like McCaul is what's going to make all the difference in 2021. Mike told me his team is "this close to defeating one of the wealthiest and most reactionary members of Congress because we are running a people-powered, populist campaign that speaks to the needs of the people in this moment of overlapping crises. We are fighting for universal health care during a pandemic, a Green New Deal in response to massive unemployment and climate disasters, a renewed Voting Rights Act to battle massive voter suppression, and other programs to guarantee equality, dignity and justice for all. This poll will help us raise additional resources and win new sources of support, all in support of a transformational movement to flip a seat and usher in a new era of representation that is close to the ground and responsive to the people." YES!!! We're in! Please contribute to Mike's campaign here. But how does Mike know he's close to beating McCaul? Once you leave Austin, it's a pretty red district. He shared a polling memo with me and said it was ok to run it on DWT. These are the key findings-- and from a relatively conservative sample of voters:
The TX-10 rematch between Mike Siegel and Michael McCaul is very close as we head into the final 5 weeks of the 2020 election. There has been notable movement in the race since our previous poll conducted at the beginning of August. Siegel has gained 4 points during these past 7 weeks, and now trails McCaul 45 to 43 percent (with Libertarian Roy Eriksen receiving 6 percent). The 2-point gap also reflects a narrowing of the 2018 result when McCaul won by 4 points, and Siegel is well-positioned to continue making gains as voters engage and the statewide environment further improves for Joe Biden. The movement in the Congressional race is consistent with movement taking place at the top of the ticket in this rapidly changing district. In fact, TX-10 is a reflection of what is happening around the country as voters of color and college educated voters are forming a powerful Democratic coalition that is transforming districts that have been held for years by Republicans and are now becoming Democratic. While Obama lost the district by 21 points to Romney in 2012, Clinton cut that margin to 9 points against Trump in 2016, and O’Rourke tied against Cruz in 2018. In our latest poll, Biden is tied with Trump and has gained 4 points since August. The following findings are based on a survey of 400 registered voters who are likely to cast ballots in the November election. The survey was conducted September 21-September 24, 2020 with live dialers to both landlines and cell phones, and is subject to a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. Key Findings:• The political environment has improved for Democrats over the past 7 weeks, and the Presidential and House races are shifting toward Biden and Siegel. Biden gained 4 points in his race with Trump, and Siegel gained 4 points in his race with McCaul. Biden is now tied with Trump in the district, and Siegel is down by 2 points against McCaul (45 to 43 percent). • Siegel’s coalition reflects the power of the political and demographic changes in the district. TX-10 has a very diverse electorate that is comprised of white (69 percent), Hispanic (13 percent), African American (11 percent), and AAPI voters (3 percent). Siegel is winning by large margins among voters of color, as well as with white college educated voters.• College educated: Siegel 48 / McCaul 42 • College educated women: Siegel 57 / McCaul 35 • Voters of color: Siegel 60 / McCaul 26 • Independents: Siegel 46 / McCaul 36• Siegel demonstrates his durability by maintaining positive favorability amid McCaul launching television and digital ads attacking him. Siegel has a +6 favorability rating (32 percent favorable / 26 percent unfavorable), which is particularly notable given the advertising on broadcast television that McCaul has run against him prior to Siegel launching his own television campaign. Siegel entered this race with high name ID for a challenger, which has helped him sustain his strength against McCaul’s efforts. • The bottom line: this is a very close race, and real movement is taking place in a state undergoing profound political change. The survey shows that healthcare remains a very powerful issue, just as it had been in 2018 when two Texas districts flipped to Democrats and several others – such the Siegel-McCaul race – were decided by only a few points. McCaul is particularly vulnerable on his votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and voters express strong opposition to his healthcare positions that continue in the middle of this pandemic. Once again, Siegel is in a neck-and-neck race with McCaul-- and this time with a stronger wind at his back-- and TX-10 is a serious pick-up opportunity for Democrats.
As Rich Benjamin reminded Intercept readers yesterday "In order to win this presidential contest, liberals need to accept that Trump supporters do not care if he were to scrap millions of mail-in votes or to welcome, and even solicit, Russian interference for his cause. Not only do some Trump supporters understand that he is an autocrat who will cheat the rules to stay in power, that’s precisely what they like about him. The left should understand that many Trump supporters inherently believe that they would fare better under an autocratic system of white supremacy than under a multiracial democracy... Questioning all that fervent, widespread Trump support would force them to question how their neighbor, their cousin, their uncle, their co-worker, their favorite vendor is complicit to a regime that prioritizes their well-being and social privilege as white people, second only to Trump’s greed. To acknowledge your aunt’s or your own complicity in Trump’s nationalist autocracy might make you feel accountable for what this country is. And that accountability to the problem damns you to an accountability to the solution... Wealth redistribution to the top, privatization, extreme incoming inequality, and ruling kleptocracy: Such are the hallmarks of this regime’s totalitarian capitalism, one that exploits catastrophe to further undercut a fair economy, a robust middle class, and truly representative democracy."