No Kings

My spouse and I, a neighbor, and friends from different parts of town attended the No Kings rally in Louisville in the Crescent Hill neighborhood. Basically, peaceful protesters lined Frankfort Avenue for several blocks between 3 and 4 pm -- and numerous drivers tooted their car horns in support as they drove by. There were a few Trump supporters in vehicles that went by as well, but no one provoked violence on either side as far as I know. 

Based on the signs, people obviously had very different reasons for protesting. Many signs focused on Donald Trump's immigration policy, reflecting anti-ICE sentiment and support for due process for all. There were a lot of signs about the Epstein files. 

I didn't carry a sign but I'm quite disturbed by the masked immigration raids and deportations (again, without due process) of individuals to places like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.  In Chicago recently, masked and heavily armed ICE agents allegedly broke down the doors in an apartment building while residents were sleeping and took everyone into the streets at gunpoint (including children). Dozens of citizens were zip-tied together, separated by race and ethnicity, and then interrogated. Eventually, people were bused away to determine if they were criminals. In the words of one resident, "They didn’t treat people like they were American.”

Local politicians have reacted with outrage:

“This raid wasn’t about public safety,” [Chicago] Mayor Brandon Johnson said several days later. “It was certainly not about immigration. This was about a show of authoritarianism, a forceful display of tyranny.”

I am even more concerned about the President's extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean (talk about lack of due process). This undermines the rule of law with the President effectively acting as judge, jury, and executioner. We don't even know if those killed have committed capital crimes. The President has labeled them as drug runners and thus narco-terrorists. The most recent attack has apparently killed an innocent fisherman. That's murder and the Department of Justice is not doing anything to address this. The Supreme Court may have made the President immune from crimes he commits as part of his official acts (as commander in chief, for example), but those firing the weapons are likely guilty of war crimes. The former President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, is in the Hague awaiting his trial for "crimes against humanity" for similarly ordering summary executions of alleged drug criminals.  

Trump is also usurping congressional power of the purse, arguably the most potent power of Congress in the American system of checks and balances. He's ended programs that were authorized (funded) explicitly by Congress (such as solar energy grants) and has lately started spending revenues that Congress has not authorized (he did this in his first term with regards to the border wall). America's founding fathers wanted Congress to be the most important branch of government.  If congressional Republicans want to end these programs, they could do it legally in the budget. The House is accountable every 2 years in elections, with one-third of the Senate also vulnerable every 2 years. 

Trump's tariffs are also a blatant misuse of presidential power as the so-called Commerce Clause of the US constitution explicitly grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Congress did pass some laws during the Cold War granting the chief executive power to enact so-called "national security" tariffs (or embargoes), but Trump has been using tariffs to generate revenues, punish states for non-security policy reasons, and as leverage in various negotiations. That's all illegal. If the Republican Congress wants tariffs, pass a law implementing them.

I took some photos, including several of the inflatable costumed critters and one of the main corner of the protest at Bauer. There were more people surrounding the Walgreens across the street from me than there were on my side. 

    

There was a much larger and better-attended event in downtown Louisville Saturday -- it was scheduled for 3 hours and there were speakers (as there were at other events around the US). My group of friends opted for the neighborhood choice. 

President Trump responded to these protests with a despicable AI-generated video of himself wearing a crown and bombing protesters (see below). CNN reports that 7 million people attended over 2700 events across the US on Saturday. Every state had a rally and many were in smaller towns -- not just cities. Kentucky is a red state of course and there were plenty of rallies in other states Trump won. 

CNN notes police reports of zero arrests in either Portland or NYC. 

 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on Bluesky.

Resistance Strategy When the Government is Itching for Violence

Last week, President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth spoke to a group of U.S. generals and admirals they had assembled from deployments all over the world. Trump gave a rambling speech, but the most troubling part repeated something he said during his 2024 campaign. The U.S. military should be in the business of fighting what he called the "enemy from within" because it is a bigger threat to America. He noted that this threat was going to be a "big thing" for those assembled. He had recently signed "an executive order to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances."

Essentially none of the brass in the audience built their careers on fighting that alleged enemy from within -- especially considering that Trump seems to be talking about his domestic political opponents though he often conflated them with ordinary criminals (who rape, shoot or beat up people). He mentioned ambiguous threats from "insurrectionists" and said they were "paid by the radical left." Read the speech, it is not very clear.

In any event, it must be weird for career military official who have fought the Taliban, ISIS, or Iraqi insurgents to hear a president claim that domestic threats are worse these days. They have homes in the U.S. They can see that America is not like war-torn Iraq or Afghanistan. Why should they believe that these domestic threats are more worrisome than North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons, or the rise of China as a great power? It's crazy talk, frankly.

Just to be clear, various sources of crime data find that violent and property crime is lower than it has been in decades. There was a 2020-21 blip from the pandemic, but that's it. 

I know a lot of international relations scholars that worry that threats are often inflated via fearmongering, but even they would be unlikely to accept Trump's ridiculous claims comparing foreign to domestic threats.

It was not just this speech that brought the issue forward, obviously. On September 25 Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-7  which emphasized a (selective) handful of recent cases of political violence that led to a few deaths. He labels this domestic terrorism and basically blames "the left." He includes a set of anecdotes -- just like he has done when noting a few misleading cases over the last decade when discussing alleged immigrant crime. Yes, immigrants occasionally commit violent crimes, but the data have long shown that they do this less frequently than US citizens. 

Anyway, this is from that NSPM-7:

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically.  Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.  A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required. 

There is no data to support these claims. A recent think tank study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies report noted a recent uptick in left-wing political violence, but there were only a small number of total deaths this century and their data revealed that the right had been responsible for far more political violence for several previous decades. The death tally for the last decade was 112 killed by the right, 13 by the left. See Figure 3 and Table 1 if you click that link. That's 125 people total, or around a dozen per year.

As I used to note on this blog, terrorism is a rare event and domestic terror is even rarer. More people die from peanut allergies, bathroom falls, dog bites, etc. The FBI and other organizations have catalogued domestic terror incidents for many years and the CSIS finding is not unique -- political violence has been far more common from the right than from the left. It's certainly not been a serious enough problem to justify reorientation of the military to fight an "enemy from within." That last linked article notes that the Trump administration removed a recent government report with conclusions that contradict Trump's baseless claims. 

It seems like Trump, Stephen Miller, and perhaps Pete Hegseth are itching for combat in American cities. Trump himself has been telling outrageous lies about Portland burning in order to justify sending in the National Guard and/or U.S. military (as a "training ground" as he said in the speech last week). This is from his speech to the military leaders:

Portland, Oregon, where it looks like a war zone. And I get a call from the liberal governor, sir, please don't come in, we don't need you. I said, well, unless they're playing false tapes, this looked like World War II. Your place is burning down. 

I visited Portland for nearly a week in mid-August and the city is not burning. It has problems with traffic and unhoused people, but there are no riots -- or even large protests like there were in summer 2020 (possibly the source of Trump's claims about Portland). I saw a handful of protesters outside a Tesla dealership. Look on social media and residents have been posting all kinds of photos demonstrating the normalcy of Portland life. 

There was a huge insurrection during the final days of Trump's presidency, but he praised that January 6 action and then pardoned all the convicted criminals this year -- even if they had committed violent acts against police officers. Such hypocrisy!

My fear is that Trump et al are sending troops and National Guard members to blue cities like Portland and Chicago (after LA and DC) in hopes of provoking the kinds of civil unrest witnessed in 2020 -- sufficient to allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act and occupy those cities. Those are Trump's words, not mine.

One obvious provocation involves ICE activities in blue cities and states. It is easy to find video footage of masked ICE agents using violence to break down doors, crash through windows, push people around. There do not seem to be many arrest warrants and the media reports plenty of cases when citizens are rounded up with other immigrants. Most immigrants now in ICE detention have never been convicted of a crime. 

Most of the worst stuff from ICE seems to be happening in blue cities and states. In my blue city in a red state, Louisville, the mayor agreed to a 48 hour hold on inmate immigrants. In other words, if an immigrant is arrested, then the city allows the federal government 48 hours to make a decision about deportation. Louisville is thus not a sanctuary city. But, apparently as a result of this agreement, there have been almost no raids and arrests have not ticked up as they have in other cities and states. Anecdotally, I often see Latinos in construction and lawn care, seeming to work without concerns about ICE agents. 

Trump voters in Kentucky (and other red states) might ignore or dismiss the news about heavy-handed ICE practices because they don't see anything like that happening in their cities and states. We residents of red states do know what that looks like. In summer 2020, BLM and Breonna Taylor protests in Louisville definitely triggered authoritarian responses from the police and people could see the streets brimming with protesters and police with occasional violence and some vandalism. 

Should red state activists increase protests in calmer areas? I'm not calling for violence -- quite the contrary -- but perhaps some sizeable ICE protests in red states would reveal more clearly that the administration is implementing a political strategy and not a public policy. How would the administration address large protests in Louisville, Memphis, Birmingham, New Orleans, Dallas, etc.? 

At the same time, I think activists in blue cities and states should be very clear that they are committed to non-violence. Especially if a regime is itching for violence, opposition violence is ineffective and counterproductive, as well as dangerous. The inspiration provided by Gandhi and MLK should guide contemporary protesters. Gene Sharp assembled a huge array of non-violent political tactics. Have a look at his toolkit. 

More importantly, scholarly research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan demonstrates that non-violent movements are far more likely to achieve their policy goals. They wrote a terrific book that I highly recommend, but you can look at this academic article if you want to read something shorter. 

I continue to worry about Trump's fascist instincts and he has been pushing the envelope throughout the year usurping legislative power (cutting spending authorized by Congress, declaring armed conflict on drug cartels, etc.). As Dan Nexon writes, the opposition needs to be planning -- and acting 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on Bluesky.

Trump Digs Coal

Donald Trump campaigned as a coal-friendly presidential candidate and his administration is trying to make good on his promises. From Politico two days ago: 

Trump signed four executive orders designed to eliminate what he sees as obstacles to ramping up coal energy production in the United States, including by opening up public lands for coal leasing. He is also pushing for the fuel to be used to power the artificial intelligence data centers that are expected to be a major contributor to skyrocketing electricity demand in the coming years.

One order would also instruct Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who chairs the president’s Energy Dominance Council, to designate coal as a “mineral,” which would help boost production under Trump’s previous executive order aimed at rapidly approving permits for domestic mineral production. It also directs Interior and other relevant agencies to lift barriers from mining the resource to boost production, according to a fact sheet.

I teach a course on the politics of climate change and all of my students can tell you that this is a very bad idea. Coal is by far the worst of the fossil fuels that cause climate change as it burns much less efficiently than natural gas and oil. As the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) keeps saying, climate change poses a " grave and mounting threat to our wellbeing and a healthy planet." The IPCC has essentially issued a "code red for humanity." 

Beyond its carbon intensity, coal is also "dirty" in the classic sense as it emits sulfur oxides and particulate pollution that is very bad for lungs. This estimate from a recent study by a team of scholars from George Mason University, the Harvard School of Public Health, and University of Texas at Austin is on the NIH website, but given the political climate could be vulnerable to a scrub:

The team estimated that between 1999 and 2020, 460,000 deaths would not have occurred in the absence of emission from the coal power plants.

That's merely in the US. Another study from University College London and Harvard found that "more than 8 million people around the globe die each year as a result of breathing in air containing particles from burning fuels like coal, petrol and diesel." 

Coal is also bad for miners and DOGE has set about killing programs and firing people that work on black lung and mine safety. Trump is also famously anti-union and anti-worker. 

In any case, the only way coal can compete in many markets is via subsidy as inexpensive natural gas has long been replacing coal in electricity generation. There was even a big drop in coal's share while Trump was president 2017-2020, but that just continued a long-term trend:

My students can also tell you that both solar and wind power are both now cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels around the world. This chart is from Popular Science:

Trump obviously digs coal, but his policies seem to be designed to make Mister Peabody wealthier, damn the consequences for the coal miner's daughter, her family, and all the rest of us. 

As the Weaver's asked decades ago, which side are you on? 

Visit this blog's homepage.


For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on Bluesky.

Vote No on Trump

Donald Trump notoriously refused to have a second debate against Kamala Harris -- perhaps because polls and critics overwhelmingly thought he lost the September debate. His verbal mistakes and ridiculous claims during that performance have given way to physical stumbles this week. The guy is 78 years old and his supporters spent months attacking the apparent decline of an aging opponent earlier this year. The electorate obviously absorbed that and Joe Biden was supplanted as the Democratic nominee as a result of the fear of a geriatric president. I don't think Trump wanted America to see another contest highlighting the stark contrast between him and the far more vigorous and quick 60 year old Harris. 

However, anyone can watch video of Trump campaigning in 2016 and it is quite evident that he is a shadow of his former self. His messages are less coherent, he rambles, and he misspeaks with great regularity. Those are links to articles, but just search YouTube for old footage of him from 2015 until 2020.

Through 2020, America became increasingly unimpressed with Trump and his daily COVID TV show. Many analysts say that the 2020 election was a referendum on Trump's handling of the pandemic -- and he lost. Biden won by 7 million votes nationally. 

In any case, despite the lack of a second debate to highlight the contrasts between the candidates, there is still time for the Harris campaign to emphasize the stark differences in their views of America. I intend to make another post highlighting why Harris is the far superior candidate -- not only in temperament, but also because of her pro-choice stance, climate change policy, the importance of Supreme Court nominations, her plans to restore higher and fairer tax rates on the richest Americans, the survival of the Affordable Care Act, etc. Trump is far worse on all those points. 

In this post I'm going to pick some choice Trump remarks that highlight some horrific stances the former President has taken regarding his plans for those opposed to his ideas and policies.

Before I begin, however, I would note that this clip from the 2016 campaign would have been disqualifying for someone seeking to be a junior high school assistant principal let alone President of the United States. I'm not sure new young voters are familiar with it:

Indeed, I've seen credible claims that the youngest voters don't really know anything about Trump's notorious Access Hollywood video footage. This also seemed disqualifying at the time -- and many Republicans said so:

Those words, which Trump and his followers dismissed as "locker room talk," were seemingly very accurate as reflected in Trump's civil defamation trial where a jury found that the former playboy committed "sexual abuse" and even "rape" against a female journalist -- and then denied it. 

I have not even mentioned the 34 felony convictions for business fraud that were again returned after a jury trial. Average Americans, not partisan competitors, heard the evidence presented by prosecutors in NY and decided he filed fraudulent documents concerning his under-the-table payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. Basically, instead of using personal funds to buy her silence, which might have been legal, Trump used business funds and recorded that the payments were for legal services. All of this was in an attempt to hide the facts of his tryst from a voting public in 2016. In other circumstances we'd call that "hush money." 

As I've blogged previously, some of my greatest concerns about Donald Trump center on the fact that the former President regularly makes the kinds of claims and threats that people associate with dictators and tyrants -- he fantasizes about not relinquishing power (and sought to remain in power after losing an election), describes his political opponents as "vermin" or enemies of the people, and threatens to turn the powerful US military against those enemies. 

Just this week, Trump discussed having Republican Liz Cheney, who co-chaired the January 6 investigation in Congress, face a firing squad for her political opinions. 

This is on top of Trump expressing open admiration for non-democratic rule in March 2018 -- and the press reported that the Republican donors in attendance applauded!

Chinese President Xi Jinping recently consolidated power. Trump told the gathering: “He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great.” Trump added, “I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

I know that the Trump campaign has been trying to play up Joe Biden's recent slip of the tongue inadvertently calling Trump supporters "garbage," but Biden is not the candidate, he clarified his remark to make clear he was talking about specific speakers at the Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, AND Trump himself makes similar comments all the time. For example, on Veterans Day in November 2023, Trump called his political opponents "vermin" and an "enemy within" that his administration would persecute: 

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”

It is clear from the speech context that Trump was not talking about some small slice of people who actually identify as communists or Marxists (though a new round of McCarthyism would be horrible). He imagined that this collective group is more dangerous than China or Russia. It's a lot of people.

Trump went on further to state: “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”

Trump has called Kamala Harris supporters garbage and scum. Just about a week ago, he called the US the "garbage can for the world." 

While words matter and these words are especially concerning, all voters should be frightened about how a new Trump presidency would address the so-called vermin/scum/garbage enemy within. Trump himself claims his response would involve setting the National Guard and military on these foes. Consider his words from an interview on Fox in mid-October 2024:

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Now circle back to that quote about Cheney above -- and the many documented times Trump has encouraged political violence. Former top national security and political aids who worked for Trump have warned that he is a dangerous wannabe fascist who should not be anywhere near the presidency again. I believe them. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

The F Word

Nope, not that one. I mean fascism. Not all readers may know what that term means or implies, historically. Most have a vague idea that the term is associated with Hitler (and maybe Mussolini), but don't realize that the word isn't merely a label for a type of politics that may seem obscure to them. It's a label for a particularly dangerous type of authoritarian politics that ends democracy. 

Political scientists often point to numerous examples where fascists and fascist-adjacent authoritarians came to power VIA ELECTIONS and then do everything in their power to assure that their political opponents (along with academics, journalist, artists, and other voices of dissent) are silenced, thrown in prison, and even killed. They do not relinquish power and subsequent elections are effectively "rigged" by the fact that opposition has been illegally crushed.

It's been shocking to me for some time that the European Union, a democratic institution, has not done something dramatic about Victor Orban's Hungary. His rise to power -- and many years in office -- exactly reflect this danger. Many Americans on the right are openly infatuated with this pathway and celebrate Orban as if he were someone to emulate. 

In any case, it is important to realize that the road to fascism is the road to the end of democracy, even if a democratic election lies along the pathway. The presence of a prominent (and successful) fascist in American politics poses great potential dangers.

For those wanting more detail, the Council on Foreign Relations provides a helpful definition of fascism: 

Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.

In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary in nature. They advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, such regimes are also highly conservative in their championing of traditional values.

And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality, their regimes often align with powerful business interests.

Why would John F. Kelly, Donald Trump's longest-serving Chief of Staff, a former four star general in the US Marines, call Trump a fascist? 

Shall we go through the definition?

First, does Trump lead "a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual"?

Trump is a self-described nationalist and ran as a populist, claiming to support the little guy who elites had trampled in the past. He claims to lead a very popular mass political movement. Trump lied and said he won the 2016 election in a "landslide" and repeated the lie after the election of 2020. 

The movement's slogan is literally "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), which is not the same as the liberal democratic objective to prioritize individual rights and dissent. I refer to liberal democracy here as a form of limited government -- the type America has attempted to create since its founding, open to free flowing information, equal protection under the law, minority rights despite majority rule, the rule of law, and a market economy. Americans aspire for a more perfect union, but this can require struggle. America's orginal voters were property-owning white men. Only gradually were other men, women, people of color, adults aged 18 to 21, etc. allowed to partake in this democratic experiment.  

Numerous Trump policies and/or proposals put his view of national goals over individual liberty -- the Muslim ban, the family separation policy, recision of Title IX protections for transgender students, and many more.  If none of that seems bothersome to the reader, don't forget the famous classic poem "First They Came" by Pastor Martin Niemöller.

What about militarism? Trump's efforts to MAGA included (in his first term) an effort to "make our military stronger than ever" as his then-Secretary of Defense said at the time. Trump perhaps wanted to be viewed as the "peace candidate" in 2016, but he repeatedly made (or makes) outlandish military threats against other states -- including North Korea, Iran, and now "the enemy from within." That's militaristic. Trump talks openly about deploying the US military against alleged internal threats -- despite laws designed to prevent that exact scenario. 

Incidentally, that Defense Secretary statement about military strength was from former four-star Marine General Jim Mattis, who reportedly agrees with Kelly and called Trump “the most dangerous person ever.” Notoriously, Trump appointed numerous generals to fill top slots in government, including to positions that are typically reserved for civilians, worrying some scholars of civil-military relations and democratic governance.

Beyond Kelly and Mattis, others from that group have offered similar warnings about Trump as a fascist threat to democracy:

Mark Milley, who was appointed by Trump to be the nation's highest ranking military officer as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called him "fascist to the core" and "the most dangerous person to this country" in comments to journalist Bob Woodward.

Some of the non-military former staffers have also agreed with Kelly and signed an open letter.

Second does Trump "advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies"? Was his regime "also highly conservative in...championing of traditional values"? 

After January 6, the answer to the first question seems obvious. Trump has been offering the "big lie" since losing to Joe Biden in 2020 and still does not accept the results of the election even though he lost dozens of court cases and all of the "evidence" for a stolen election has been convincingly  and thoroughly debunked. Even when Trump sympathizers attempted to recount ballots in Arizona, they arrived at a result that favored Biden by even more votes than the original count. Trump knew that he lost -- according to his Attorney General and his political advisors. His own daughter (Ivanka, who served in the administration) admits that he lost. 

Some people might consider all this and merely think Trump is a "sore loser." But there's much, much more. He gathered protesters and extremists to Washington in an effort to stop the certification of the 2020 election, he worked with political figures in various states to manufacture fake Electoral College electors and ballots, he is charged with inciting protesters to criminal and violent behavior, and he both privately and publicly urged Mike Pence to take actions that are not in the power of the Vice Presidency. 

Since losing, Trump has repeatedly said he will seek revenge on his political enemies -- it's a growing list that includes lots of Republicans that have spoken out against his lies. I do not have time or energy to document each case as an "NPR investigation has found that Trump has made more than a hundred threats to investigate, prosecute, jail or otherwise punish his perceived opponents, including private citizens." By name he has mentioned Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, etc. Trump openly says he wants retribution. 

The championing of conservative values is part of Trump's message so I won't belabor it. He appointed judges who eliminated the right to abortion and calls now for a "states-right" approach, which is what segregationists wanted for civil rights. He supports tax cuts and gun rights and makes anti-immigration and massive deportation a central argument for his election. These are now all conservative causes -- to say nothing of his recent use of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. 

Third, despite Trump claiming "to support the everyman," did he, "in reality...often align with powerful business interests"? Trump's main legislative victory as president was a huge tax cut that primarily aided wealthy people and business interests. He appointed a large number of billionaires to his Cabinet -- and very few women or people of color. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has been advising Trump and openly campaigning for him in person and on his social media site. 

That's the CFR list, but I could easily add more points. Trump has said he would be a dictator on day one. He has stoked violence in American politics -- a critique I have been making for many years. Trump repeatedly praised authoritarians and dictators while he was president -- and after. The list includes Russia's Vladimir Putin, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, Hungary's Victor Orban, and Chinese President Xi Jinpin. Behind the scenes he apparently admired Adolph Hitler. He has "joked" about serving as president beyond two terms (contrary to the US constitution) and reportedly made all kinds of policy suggestions that would not be legal. Some of the generals and other former Trump officials speaking out against him say he has no understanding of the rule of law. 

I haven't even mentioned his almost unfathomable propensity to lie -- notably even claiming falsely that his January 6 speech encouraged merely peaceful protest, that no one was killed that day, or that no one was armed. All readily disproved. Oh, and by the way, this lying is buttressed by his constant criticism of the media, which he has called "the enemy of the people," and threats to jail reporters and strip away broadcast licenses. 

Anyone thinking of voting for this man should take into account the views of the numerous inner circle Republicans -- including former Vice President Dick Cheney -- who are courageously speaking out against Trump and urging his defeat in November's election. 

NOTE: I may update this piece with links and ideas that I overlooked.

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Republicans for Harris

In late August more than 235 Republicans who describe themselves as "alumni" of the campaigns or presidencies of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney published a public letter explaining why they would not be voting for Donald Trump -- and would be voting for Kamala Harris. 

Here's a key part of their message:

Of course, we have plenty of honest, ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz. That’s to be expected. The alternative, however, is simply untenable. 

At home, another four years of Donald Trump’s chaotic leadership, this time focused on advancing the dangerous goals of Project 2025, will hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions. 

Abroad, democratic movements will be irreparably jeopardized as Trump and his acolyte JD Vance kowtow to dictators like Vladimir Putin while turning their backs on our allies.

Earlier in the message, they blast Trump for lying about the results of the 2020 election and inciting an insurrection. They describe the crowd as "a mob of sore losers and sycophants."

I have an old friend who was part of the HW Bush administration, but I do not see his name on the list of signatories. From a conversation we had in the last year or so, I'm pretty sure he won't be voting for Trump. It's another step to say you are voting for Harris -- and to do so publicly as these individuals have done.

Incidentally, the list does not include Liz or Dick Cheney, though their positions on this are well-known. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Trump's Violent Fantasies

Donald Trump is back to his habit of fantasizing about the government (under his leadership) using illegal violence against criminals, immigrants, and/or political opponents. I blogged about this in 2019 when he was in office. I also compiled references to his violent rhetoric dating to the start of his first campaign in 2015 through 2019.

A couple of days ago in Erie, PA, Trump said something that sounded like the plot for "The Purge." It imagined a whole new level of violence:

"You know, if you had one day, like one real rough, nasty day," he said, during a section of the speech about how left-wing politicians are allegedly preventing police from enforcing the law, "one rough hour, and I mean real rough, the word will get out and it will end immediately. End immediately. You know, it'll end immediately."

Trump defenders say that the former president was speaking "in jest," but it didn't seem like a joke (watch below) and is entirely consistent with comments he has made over the years. Plus, populists employing similar authoritarian rhetoric have actually empowered death squads in various countries around the world. In the Philippines, for example, 1000s of people were killed by the police during a war on drugs and crime authorized by a newly elected populist right-wing president. A similar pattern emerged in Brazil in 2019 where the police killed 17 people per day, on average. 

In those deaths, the police act as judge, jury, and executioner. So much for constitutional protections like due process of law and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment. How is it conservative to abandon the bill of rights? 

If you want to skip straight to the quoted message in the video below, you cannot, because Trump starts with "one real rough, nasty day" around 2:15, gets off-track with a made-up anecdote about Kamala Harris (referencing a decriminalization law signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger years before Harris was elected to state or national office), and then around 3:25 into the video mentions "one rough hour, and I mean real rough." The first few minutes ramble through some complaints about debate moderators and some made-up stuff about crime. He criticizes statistics, though candidate Trump often references (made up or out-of-date) statistics to support his points.

That last linked article from the Washington Post notes that crime statistics have been in general decline since the 1990s, but did spike in 2020, Trump's final year of office (during the pandemic). Crime stats remained a bit high until 2022, but have declined substantially since then. 

 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Dick Cheney is Voting for Kamala Harris

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has often been criticized on this blog. However, the Cheney family agrees with me about the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Liz Cheney famously co-headed the January 6 Committee. Now, Dick Cheney is speaking out:

"In our nation’s 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He can never be trusted with power again. As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution. That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris," said on Friday, September 6, Dick Cheney in an interview with the media.

The odd wording in that last phrase likely indicates the extent to which AI is being used to put together stories on the web. It's not great. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Another America First piece

Kurt Mills and I have published another piece about America First and human rights. This is a short "engagement" style article for The Conversation, a widely read academic blog written for a broader readership.

This is the piece published today: "How Donald Trump’s ‘America first’ agenda has damaged global human rights."

Incidentally, because of this online piece and the approaching US presidential election, publisher Taylor and Francis has made the longer Journal of Human Rights article available for free reading (and downloading) through October 31: "America First and the Human Rights Regime."

These articles are both tied to my May-June 2019 Global Scholar gig at University of Dundee at the Institute for Social Science Research.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

America First and the Human Rights Regime

Last week, Journal of Human Rights published online my new article coauthored with Kurt Mills, "America First and the Human Rights Regime." This week, it already appeared in print! 

This is the citation:

Kurt Mills & Rodger A. Payne (2020) America First and the human rights regime, Journal of Human Rights, 19:4, 399-424, DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2020.1809362 

And this is the Abstract

Donald Trump’s populist, nationalist “America First” agenda advocates a transactional, zero-sum, hypercompetitive, and sovereigntist view of US foreign policy, which many scholars and policymakers conclude poses a considerable challenge to multilateralism. We explore the threat America First presents to the international human rights regime as reflected in important institutions and norms. We survey America First policies regarding immigration and refugee norms as well as norms prohibiting torture and war crimes. We examine its position on the UN Human Rights Commission and the International Criminal Court, consider Trump’s sympathies for autocratic governments, and explore the development of the Commission on Unalienable Rights. Finally, we explain why the America First norm transgressions pose a novel threat to the human rights regime, potentially more worrisome than prior US norm violations. America First’s performative element risks reconstituting US identity as an outsider state, if not an outlaw, vis-à-vis the international community.

Regular readers may recall that this piece was tied to my Global Scholar appointment at University of Dundee in May-June 2019, when I was on sabbatical. 

If you want to read it and don't have access, let me know. I have a pdf and I have a link for up to 50 readers online. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

COVID 19 and ISA

Posted March 25: On March 8, I wrote the following note to a colleague who wondered why I was thinking about withdrawing from the ISA conference in Honolulu, scheduled for March 25-28. S/he was comparing the virus to the flu and noted Hawaii's lack of cases at the time. I have slighted edited it to fix typos, add links, and assure anonymity of individuals.
--------------
I understand the flu risk argument and Hawaii’s lack of cases. However, the lack of cases is likely because of lack of testing. The US really dropped the ball on this with delays in preparation, a flawed first test, and an illogical containment strategy. Many experts are now saying containment obviously failed in many communities and it is time to consider mitigation of community spread.

The logic: The doubling rate for known cases outside China is every 4 days. Given the number of deaths in the US (20 now, I think), between 450 and 2000 people likely have the disease already. Nearly 500 have tested positive. The NYT reported yesterday that nearly 2800 New Yorkers are in self-quarantine. There are 76 in Hawaii. The Atlantic Monthly reports that fewer than 2000 people have been tested in the entire US – only 16 tested as of yesterday in Hawaii. If the true number of current cases is merely 500 people right now, we could still have 1 million US cases in 6 to 8 weeks time if the status quo prevails. There are serious concerns the virus could quickly outstrip the health system’s ability to function. This thread is from someone who used to work at CDC as an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer: https://twitter.com/Farzad_MD/status/1236393626760032257
With testing just about to ramp up, many experts say the number of US cases is about to “explode” as the CDC guy wrote.

I actually have a personal story that illustrates the poor planning** in the US so far:  I had a colleague return from a research trip to Wuhan on December 14. We had beers together a week later at a popular local bar and socialized again together on New Year’s eve. By late January, however, the news coming from China was of such concern that the University required recent returnees from China to spend 14 days at home in quarantine. Of course, for people in my friend's social circle, the horse would have already been out of the barn if he was infected. 

Until this week, no one in Kentucky had been tested for the virus. They’ve tested 14 across the entire state and identified only 1 person with the virus. What scientists don’t really know with certainty is if asymptomatic people could be carrying and spreading the disease. 

That’s really the problem. Who knows?

And the risks are worrisome.

The evidence not only seems to suggest that that virus spreads much more quickly and readily than the flu (because of airborne droplets) – but that it is perhaps 20 times as lethal. I had the flu vaccine in the fall, but there is no vaccine against this virus. Even though the lethality is greater for the elderly, people in my age bracket are still dying at a 10-fold rate. With flu, about 1% of people end up in the hospital with a serious respiratory problem. With COVID 19 it is more like 15 to 20%. That’s largely why the health systems could be broken with a huge outbreak (to flu-like levels of cases).

Mitigation measures are going to become fairly draconian for the US:

Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said today on Meet the Press that “You don't want to go to a massive gathering, particularly if you're a vulnerable individual. If we continue to see the community spread go up I think you need to seriously look at anything that's a large gathering.”

Austin, Texas, canceled its annual South by Southwest event. Numerous universities are ending travel outside the CONUS. The Physics people canceled their large meeting in Denver. A friend who works in Department of Energy in DC told me that all work travel has been suspended. Someone tested positive who had just attended the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) conference, where both Trump and Pence spoke.  

The Trump administration is still insisting that we are in containment mode, which means 14 day quarantines. Thus, if anyone at the ISA conference develops symptoms and tests positive, attendees could end up spending weeks in quarantine [Hawaii subsequently ordered all arrivals to the island to quarantine]. Even healthy people from the first cruise ship were quarantined for about a month (2 weeks offshore or in Japan and 2 weeks in the US).

I don’t think I’m especially alarmist.

---------------
** "Poor planning" compared to Taiwan, for example, a democratic partner of the US, which learned about the disease in December and began its countermeasures at that time: "As early as the beginning of December, Taiwanese health officers started boarding flights arriving from Wuhan to check passengers for symptoms before they could leave the plane."

"Poor planning" also in that US public health officials could have immediately starting investigating recent arrivals from Wuhan, China, and finding out if those people, family members, or contacts in their social circle had unusual illnesses in December, January, or February. Top policymakers and members of Congress certainly received briefings about the dangers that early and some were worried: From Senator Richard Blumental (D-CT) after the January 24 briefing the Senate received: “We are far from having this potential epidemic under control. We should be worried and concerned about this potential epidemic as a nation” 

Sadly, it appears the negligence started at the top: "President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, The Washington Post reported Friday."


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Trump and Threats of Political Violence

I've been collecting these anecdotes and would welcome additions:

In August 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump strongly criticized Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders for showing that he’s “weak” by allowing Black Lives Matter protesters to  take control of the microphone at a campaign event in Seattle. CNN’s Eric Bradner reproduced the full Trump comment: “I would never give up my microphone. I thought that was disgusting. That showed such weakness, the way he was taken away by two young women -- the microphone; they just took the whole place over… That will never happen with me." Trump continued, “I don't know if I'll do the fighting myself or if other people will, but that was a disgrace. I felt badly for him. But it showed that he's weak.”

In November 2015, another protester yelled “Black Lives Matter” at a Trump rally in Birmingham, Alabama. A fight soon broke out, the protester fell to the ground, and he was allegedly kicked and punched by several white men. At the rally, Trump declared, “Get him the hell out of here, will you, please? Get him out of here. Throw him out!” As the man was escorted by security from the event, members of the crowd repeatedly pushed and shoved him. The following day, Trump said “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Trump complained that the man was “so obnoxious and so loud, he was screaming.”

In January 2016, a protester threw a tomato at a Trump rally in Iowa City, Iowa. A week later, on the February day of the Iowa caucuses, Trump told his audience in Cedar Rapids: “If you see somebody with a tomato, knock the crap out of them.” ABC News reported that Trump told his crowd, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise."

In another February 2016 event in Las Vegas, Nevada, Trump accused a protester of throwing punches at security guards. He told the crowd, “You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher. I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.” At the same event, Trump referenced the leader of Iranians who took US Navy sailors hostage as a “rough guy with a rough mouth — I’d like to smack the hell out of him.”

At still another February 2016 rally in Warren, Michigan, Trump reacted to a protester by declaring “Get him out.” He added, “Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it.”

In March 2016, when his rally in St. Louis, Missouri, was repeatedly interrupted by protesters, Trump said, “Part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long [to kick them out] is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore… There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.” Trump continued: “These people are so bad for our country. You have no idea folks, you have no idea.”

At an August 2016 rally in North Carolina, Trump said it would be a “horrible day” if his opponent Hillary Clinton is elected President. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks… Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”[8]

Trump’s violent rhetoric continued after becoming president.

In a July 2017 speech to law enforcement officers on Long Island, Trump said “And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice.  (Laughter.)  Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over?  Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head.  I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”

In July 2017, Trump shared a controversial edited video on Twitter revealing Trump in a 2007 WWE skit violently attacking another man who had been standing near a wrestling ring. In the doctored version shared by Trump, the CNN logo was placed in the area where the man’s face would be.

In October 2018, Trump praised Montana RepublicanRepresentative Greg Gianforte who body slammed a reporter at a rally. Trump declared, “Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!”

In a March 2019 interview with Breitbart News, Trump was discussing the tactics used by Democrats to use subpoena power in its investigations of the president: “I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump — I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”

On September 29, 2019, Trump tweeted a quote from a supporter speaking on Fox News who said that a successful impeachment would cause civil war: “If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress.”

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.