Chris Hedges's Blog, page 519

From Sweden to the U.S., Resistance Is in the Air

Truthdig editor’s note: To see a recording of Elin Ersson’s livestream, click here.

Elin Ersson, a young Swedish student, boarded a plane at the airport in Gothenburg, Sweden, bound for Istanbul. The plane was crowded as its crew prepared to take off. Ersson stood up in the aisle, protesting that a fellow passenger, an Afghan refugee, was being deported. She was livestreaming as she spoke: “I’m not going to sit down until this person is off the plane, because he will most likely get killed if he is on this plane when it goes up.” The government officials accompanying the refugee tried to force her away from them. Turkish Airlines flight attendants tried to take her phone. But she persisted.

The tension on the plane, in her voice and on her face was palpable. “The pilot has the right to say that he is not allowed to be on the plane. And as long as he is not on the plane, then I will comply.” As she waited for the captain’s decision, she calmly continued her live narration. She was accosted by an angry man who grabbed her phone, which she recovered. “I am very sorry that a man is going to die and you are more worried about missing your flight,” she told him. When told that she was inconveniencing passengers, she replied, “But they’re not going to die; he’s going to die.”

In the background, a man’s voice can be heard explaining the situation to other passengers in Turkish. Suddenly the cabin is filled with applause. She panned her camera around to show that the cabin was now filled with people standing as well. Ersson’s eyes teared as she continued to describe the reasons for her protest. Word came that the refugee was being removed through a door at the back of the plane. Elin Ersson stood at the front door, refusing to disembark until she could confirm that the refugee was actually on the ground. The protest only took 15 minutes, but might have saved an asylum-seeker’s life.

The plight of migrants and refugees, in both Europe and the United States, has become one of the central controversies of our time. Wars, violence, climate change and growing global inequality are driving people to leave their home countries seeking safety. In Europe, most refugees come from Syria and Afghanistan. Violence in the Central American nations of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are driving refugees north to the U.S. The journeys are long and dangerous.

Protests against the cruel anti-immigrant policies of President Donald Trump are diverse and fierce. From the airport protests against Trump’s “Muslim ban” in his first weeks in office, to vigils and sit-ins at the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, to the halls of Congress, people have been putting their bodies on the line to oppose the ongoing persecution of migrants.

Opposition to harsh immigration policies is resonating in electoral politics. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic candidate for Congress who upended the Democratic Party with her recent primary victory over a powerful incumbent, said in a recent interview with “Democracy Now!,” responding to Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy that separated nearly 3,000 children from their immigrant parents, “We need to occupy every airport, we need to occupy every border, we need to occupy every ICE office, until those kids are back with their parents, period.”

This week, the nattering nabobs of nativism over at Fox News got their comeuppance when they tried to book Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democratic congressional candidate in Arizona who is pro-ICE. They mistakenly booked a different candidate, from Massachusetts. She knew her airtime was limited:

“Good morning. I’m actually here to speak directly to Donald Trump. I feel that what’s happening at the border is wrong. I’m a mother of four, and I believe that separating kids from their parents is illegal and inhumane. I’m actually Barbara L’Italien, I’m a state senator representing a large immigrant community. I’m running for Congress in Massachusetts. I keep thinking about what we’re putting parents through, imagining how terrifying that must be for those families, imagining how it would feel not knowing if I’d ever see my kids again. We have to stop abducting children and ripping them from their parents’ arms, stop putting kids in cages, and stop making 3-year-olds defend themselves in court.” She was soon cut off by the befuddled co-hosts.

Creative protests and acts of solidarity, in concert with the determination and courage of the refugees themselves, are changing politics in the U.S and abroad. When Elin Ersson was reprimanded in the midst of her action, told that the Afghan man was being deported according to Swedish law, she replied, “I’m trying to change my country’s rules.” Rulebreakers, troublemakers, dissenters: resistance is in the air.

Scientists Puzzle Over Changes in the North Atlantic

The world can breathe again. Europe can relax: the glaciers will not return. The North Atlantic circulation may resume its former pace and the Gulf Stream slowdown could be coming to an end.

But that may not be entirely good news. Global warming could also be about to accelerate, according to new research into one of oceanography’s most enigmatic phenomena, the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

New studies of all the data so far by an ocean scientist and a mathematician say that what affects North Atlantic circulation may not be driven by man-made climate change. The ocean may be responding to a very long-term natural climate cycle.

At the heart of the puzzle is a simple fact. The flow of warm water from the tropical Atlantic right up to the coast of northern Norway has a dramatic impact on western Europe’s climate. This means that the United Kingdom, France, and other nations are conspicuously warmer than they might be if latitude was the only factor.

A former UK chief scientist once calculated that the Gulf Stream contributed 27,000 times the warmth generated by all the UK’s power stations. But theorists argued that as the Arctic region warmed, the rate of flow could diminish, and paradoxically throw Europe into a new little Ice Age. A 2004 Hollywood disaster movie called The Day After Tomorrow followed this logic, with Britain frozen and glaciers cascading south into the US.

In fact, no such calamitous and sudden return of the intense and lethal cold could happen, but researchers have since then consistently observed a pattern of slowing in the North Atlantic circulation, linked such slowdowns to global warming driven by profligate use of fossil fuels that enrich the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and repeatedly warned that the consequences could be costly or even devastating.

But a new study of the data available exposes other possibilities. In the first place, climate scientists have direct measurements of the circulation strength only from 2004, and the decline measured since then has been 10 times more than anyone expected. Perhaps the slowdown could be just part of a regular, rhythmic cycle that happens independently of anything humans have done to trigger global warming, researchers say in the journal Nature.

“Many have focused on the fact that it’s declining very rapidly, and that if the trend continues it will go past a tipping point, bringing a catastrophe such as an ice age,” said Ka-Kit Tung, a mathematician at the University of Washington in the US.

Already Over

“It turns out that none of that is going to happen in the near future. The fast response may instead be part of a natural cycle and there are signs that the decline is already ending.”

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation takes warm surface water northward. The dense salty water sinks into the Labrador and Nordic Seas and returns at depth all the way to the Southern Ocean, to rise again. The puzzle is what happens next.

As the current sinks in the far north, it carries heat away from the surface. But the same transport of heat causes the northern glaciers to recede, and melt, diluting the saline water and making it less likely to sink. So the circulation slows.

The reasoning that follows is that, in a slow phase, the North Atlantic becomes cooler, the ice melt slows, the fresh meltwater sources begin to dry up and the heavier, saltier water plunges more urgently, and the whole circulation speeds up again.

Disagreement

And if this happens in a natural cycle – and not all climate scientists and oceanographers will agree – it is one that lasts for many decades: 60 to 70 years. But oceanographers don’t have the more than 60 to 70 years of measurements needed to confirm this pattern.

“We have about one cycle of observations at depth, so we do not know if it is periodic, but based on the surface phenomena we think it’s very likely it is episodic,” said Professor Tung.

“The good news is that the indicators show that this slowdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation is ending, and so we shouldn’t be alarmed that this current will collapse any time soon.

“The bad news is that surface temperatures are likely to start rising more quickly in the coming decades.”

House Conservatives File Papers to Impeach Rod Rosenstein

WASHINGTON — A group of 11 House conservatives introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Justice Department official who oversees special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The move came Wednesday after months of criticism aimed at the department — and the Russia investigation in particular — from Trump and his Republican allies in Congress. Trump has fumed about Mueller’s probe and repeatedly called it a “witch hunt,” a refrain echoed by some of the lawmakers. The impeachment effort is led by North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, who talks to Trump frequently and often defends him to his colleagues.

It is unclear whether there will be enough support in the party to pass the impeachment resolution, as Republican leaders have not signed on to the effort and are unlikely to back it.

Meadows, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and the other Republicans who introduced the resolution have criticized Rosenstein and Justice Department officials for not being responsive enough as House committees have requested documents related to the beginning of the Russia investigation and a closed investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The introduction does not trigger an immediate vote, but Meadows could make procedural moves on the House floor that could force a vote late this week or when the House returns in September from its upcoming recess. The House is scheduled to leave Thursday for the five-week recess.

The five articles charge Rosenstein of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for failing to produce information to the committees, even though the department has already provided lawmakers with more than 800,000 documents, and of signing off on what some Republicans say was improper surveillance of a Trump adviser.

The resolution also goes directly after Rosenstein for his role in the ongoing Mueller investigation, criticizing him for refusing to produce a memo that outlines the scope of that investigation and questioning whether the investigation was started on legitimate grounds. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump’s campaign was in any way involved.

It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for lawmakers to demand documents that are part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

In a statement, Meadows said Rosenstein’s conduct is “reprehensible.”

“It’s time to find a new deputy attorney general who is serious about accountability and transparency,” Meadows said.

It’s uncertain how many of Meadows’ fellow Republicans agree. Rosenstein, along with FBI Director Christopher Wray, faced dozens of angry Republicans at a House hearing last month. The lawmakers alleged bias at the FBI and suggested the department has conspired against Trump — but many could draw the line at impeachment.

“Impeachment is a punishment, it’s not a remedy,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy said shortly before Meadows introduced the resolution. “If you are looking for documents, then you want compliance, and you want whatever moves you toward compliance.”

The impeachment resolution came about two hours after GOP lawmakers met with Justice Department officials about the documents. Meadows said after that meeting that there was still “frustration” with how Justice has handled the oversight requests.

Republican leaders, however, have said in recent weeks that they are satisfied with the Justice Department’s progress. Gowdy said after the meeting that he was pleased with the department’s efforts. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also said he is satisfied with progress on the document production.

Meadows heads the conservative Freedom Caucus and has sparred with Ryan on issues from immigration to federal spending. His open threat of triggering a vote on impeachment — which he can do if he follows a certain set of procedural rules — could help him win concessions on other contentious issues before the House.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said she had no comment on the articles of impeachment. Rosenstein has overseen the Russia investigation since last year, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the probe following reports of his meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Democrats have criticized the Republican efforts to pressure the Justice Department, saying they are attempts to undermine Mueller’s investigat

In a joint statement, the top Democrats on the House Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform and intelligence committees called the move a “panicked and dangerous attempt to undermine an ongoing criminal investigation in an effort to protect President Trump as the walls are closing in around him and his associates.”

So far, the special counsel has charged 32 people and three companies. That includes four Trump campaign advisers.

Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Adam Schiff of California said Rosenstein “stands as one of the few restraints against the overreaches of the president and his allies in Congress.”

___

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Chad Day contributed to this report.

In Defense of Dissenters

I rise today in defense of an oft-maligned group that has become the target of political zealots and of too many Americans who are convinced that voting is a silver bullet to address social inequalities. In today’s political reality show, we are led to believe that Democrats and Republicans are engaged in an ideological death struggle. Consequently, the divides between the two parties and their respective bases get wider with each successive generation of voters.

However, irrespective of their supposed differences, Republicans and Democrats alike find it easy to castigate people who don’t vote.

This is a form of victim-blaming and stems from misplaced frustrations. In 2016 alone, more than 100 million people skipped the presidential election. This act of abstention is viewed by some as apathy and dereliction of civic duty; however, what some see as evidence of sloth, I see as a show of dissension. Our political system is a charade mixed with a heavy dose of fiction, so people who choose to sit out elections may well have decided to opt out of a farce instead of opting into a racket.

Voting has become an opioid doled out to the public to let us vent our frustrations and to offer us illusions of change. Major-party politicians—who take loyalty pledges to their party, which in either case has entered into a blood oath with the neo-aristocracy—are paraded out on a regular basis to promise a new day once they are elected. The minute the last vote is counted that vision morphs back into the old nightmare of wealth transference to the uber-rich and to financial anxieties for the rest of us.

To say that our political system is broken is the most severe of understatements. Two political parties, which are informed by the same ideology of corporate fascism, are colluding to monopolize access and to exclude anyone who does not join their cartel. They contrast at the margins, but when it comes to the core issues of economic and foreign policies, both parties are different mainly in brand. Democrats use concern and paternalism, while Republicans turn to values and piety, to accomplish the same objectives: to enrich their donors and enhance their own fortunes.

Sadly, instead of focusing on this reprehensible nepotism that has taken over our government and effectively rendered the citizenry impotent to the whims of multinational corporations and oligarchs, we bludgeon each other over politics. Key players in the media-political complex—from pundits and politicians to media personalities—are vested in the status quo. They dare not point out the transgressions of political and social constructs that rupture society and ghettoize people behind walls of ideology and imposed identities. The few voices, including Chris Hedges, Cornel West and others who are unheralded because they refuse to pander to ideology or identity-based politics, have their status and access to mainstream media revoked and are treated as persona non grata.

In an industry infected by narcissists and egotistic divas, mainstream journalists and personalities fear nothing more than losing their insider privilege. Instead of challenging authority and questioning government narratives, they fall in line, echoing partisan talking points and corporate propaganda. This is what happens when the influence of billionaires commandeers almost every institution and lever of power; the level of spending correlates at nearly a 1-to-1 ratio with the eventual winner of political campaigns. We are led by a cadre of gawkers who fawn at the emperor’s invisible attire.

In this scheme, those who speak up and mention that the monarchs have no clothes on are lashed back into compliance or mocked as deviants. It is easier to heap scorn on those who defy than it is to question one’s own complicity. This is why Hillary Clinton fanatics are given to treating each Donald Trump indignity as an invitation to berate anyone who did not vote for the candidate who cackled while Tripoli was burning. To which I retort: Donald Trump would not be president if Barack Obama did not spend eight years catering to the whims of Wall Street and treating his loyal supporters as stage props, and if Clinton did not sign up to fulfill every Wall Street neoliberal’s wish list.

To dissect how we got to where we are—short on alternatives and presented with limited choices as a “democracy”—requires seeking out the root causes that contribute to social inequalities and spread iniquities. Our political system is a reflection of our values, and as long as we place self-enrichment above communal wellness, we will keep getting leaders who cater to our grievances and disregard our common struggles. Sadly, we have been so conditioned to think short-term and believe in quick fixes that we no longer seem able to evaluate social issues with nuance.

Meanwhile, our political process is feeding our basest tribal instincts. Politics has become an us-versus-them proposition for this reason, as folks vote in keeping with their “gang colors” and cliques instead of debating ideas sans ideology. Voting has become an end instead of a means of delivering solutions; the electorate would rather outsource the hard work required to build up our country and our communities to the same politicians who are sabotaging us with their avarice.

Gaslighting nonconformists and ridiculing people who refuse to endorse this two-party scam might feel good to some political enthusiasts, but in the end it does not ameliorate the systematic and institutional graft that is tearing apart our nation and causing problems beyond our borders. I’m not advocating that we give up, abdicate our civic responsibilities or live off the grid disconnected from the world. There are many ways to loosen the stranglehold that Democrats and Republicans have on our government. Here are a couple: Either build viable parties to compete with the duopoly in Washington, D.C., or banish party identification and let people compete for votes based on candidates’ ideas.

Our political apparatus is broken and in need of a major overhaul. It is time for us to stop viewing politics as a sport and stop believing that restricted ballots offer a real choice. If we want a government that works for us and a democracy that represents all instead of a few, we must focus on the disease instead of obsessing about the symptoms. We might also place the onus where it belongs—on the perpetrators—rather than blaming the victims.

Trump Is Failing at the Business of Being President

Trump just can’t get things done, and we need to stop having conversations predicated on the assumption that maybe he can. His dangerous incompetence is currently risking war in the Middle East and Asia, while pitting American against American in ways we haven’t seen in this country since the days of George Wallace.

For example, while citizens and leaders of the western world try to figure out what happened in Helsinki, Trump supporters are in plaintive wail mode: “He just wants better relations with Russia,” they say. “What’s wrong with that?”

In a previous op-ed, I posited three possible reasons for Donald Trump’s behavior relative to Russia: that he’s a witting or unwitting stooge, a wannabe dictator, or desperately broke. Several people noted, in comments to the article, that I’d missed a fourth option: “He’s trying for world peace. Wouldn’t better U.S./Russia relations be a good thing for the U.S. and world peace?”

Of course, it would be a good thing if the U.S. and Russia could get along better. It would be a very good thing.

Relations have been badly strained with Russia ever since we first started pushing NATO onto her borders (in ways that Reagan/Bush had promised Gorbachev would never happen if he’d let the USSR dissolve), and Russia (in part, citing those broken promises) intervened in Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine.

But Donald Trump is never going to untangle that mess: He simply lacks the skills, and isn’t willing to turn details over to underlings who are competent. Instead, in Bolton and Pompeo, he has selected “hawks” historically hostile to Russia, which may be why he went out of his way to exclude them from his talks in Helsinki. It says a lot when a president is so incompetent he can’t even appoint advisers who agree with his worldview.

He just can’t do things competently.

This pattern has repeated almost daily since the election: consider how his other promises and actions reveal his distressing lack of competence and his failure to understand even the most basic elements of statesmanship and governance.

Donald Trump was elected on an “outsider” platform that, in significant ways, mirrored that of Bernie Sanders and progressive Democrats, earning him large swaths of former Obama voters. But his incompetence has betrayed them, and every world leader, looking on, now knows exactly what they’re dealing with and won’t be suckered the way working-class Americans were in November of 2016.

On entitlements, for example, Trump famously stood on the stage on April 18, 2015 (and multiple other occasions), and said, “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid, and we can’t do that and it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now, all of a sudden, they wanna be cutting it.” (Bernie, of course, didn’t believe him for a second and called him out.)

He can’t do it on entitlements.

On trade, Trump took the position of the Congressional Progressive Caucus—and every U.S. administration from George Washington to Jimmy Carter—when he said he would protect U.S. jobs (and bring home manufacturing jobs) with the use of targeted tariffs. The last time we had a substantive national discussion of the issue was when Ross Perot challenged Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush for the presidency in 1992, and won over 20 percent of the national vote (correctly) warning of that “giant sucking sound from the south” that would happen if the U.S. signed NAFTA and joined the GATT/WTO.

Most Americans then, and most now, supported targeted tariffs. But Trump’s all over the map, doling out exceptions to tariffs and trade rules when it suits his business interests or when he gets hassled by his wealthy Republican constituency.

Even worse, companies must operate over decades-long periods when planning to invest millions or billions into new manufacturing facilities—but because Trump is doing what he is by executive actions (with a “national security” excuse that will probably be struck down in the courts) instead of moving comprehensive trade legislation through Congress, no company has the assurance that his protective tariffs won’t simply evaporate the day he leaves office.

While tariffs should lead to increases in domestic manufacturing and, thus, more jobs, they aren’t in this case because no company can take that large a risk on such an unstable president with an eccentric policy that has no laws behind it.

He just can’t do it on trade.

On international relations, Trump repeatedly called for better relations with other nations, a goal that (outside of a few hardliners) is widely embraced, at least in the abstract, by both parties and the people of the world (particularly in Europe). Sadly, he’s managed to damage or destroy our relations with all but a handful of autocratic nations, disrespecting and angering American allies who’ve been with us for centuries.

He can’t do it on international relations.

On infrastructure, Trump parroted Bernie in calling for a $1.5 trillion national investment in America’s crumbling infrastructure, repeatedly pointing out that since U.S. infrastructure investments collapsed following Reagan’s huge tax cuts in the 1980s, we’ve let our roads, rails, and airports deteriorate to Third World status. But action since the election? He seems to have forgotten.

He can’t do it on infrastructure.

On issues affecting women and children, Trump called for increased federal spending for child care, child tax credits, and paid maternity leave. The GOP in Congress and the billionaires who fund their campaigns and their voter suppression efforts simply laughed at him.

He can’t do it on family issues.

On health care, Trump continued to insist, even after he was elected, that he would follow the Democrats’ plan to change the law so that Medicare could directly negotiate prescription drug prices (ending a $600 billion windfall for the drug companies inserted by the GOP in 2005), and would provide “insurance for everybody” that was “much less expensive and much better than” Obamacare. Instead, he’s changing the law so your insurance company can once again refuse to pay your bills if they can dig into your records and find any remote evidence of a pre-existing condition. Or simply dump you when you get sick.

He can’t do it on health care.

On taxes, while President Obama signed into law the largest middle-class tax cut in the history of the nation, Trump promised an even bigger tax cut for working people. Instead, he and the GOP handed over $5 trillion in U.S. tax dollars to the billionaire and corporate class, while further depressing wages on working people.

He can’t do it on taxes.

He promised to help out low-income blacks, saying, “What have you got to lose?” Turns out that, along with other low-income minorities and low-income whites, they’re losing a lot, from the right to vote, to essential government help with housing, food, and health care. His white supremacist base seems happy with his “rapist”/“shithole” rhetoric, but they’re being screwed economically by his policies, too.

He can’t do it for low-income folks, people of color, or even the racists among his base.

Trump is breathtakingly incompetent. His businesses have failed repeatedly, foreign oligarchs are bailing him out, and he and Michael Cohen apparently broke numerous U.S. election laws just getting him elected. He couldn’t even run a competent campaign for president, and without “a little (illegal) help from his friends” wouldn’t be in the White House.

He can’t do it through politics.

Trump can’t get his pitiful wall out of his own Republican-controlled Congress, and his brutal child-separation/detention-camp policies have horrified Americans across the political spectrum.

He can’t do it on immigration.

He has utterly failed at health care, to the point that massive increases in insurance prices (and declines in the quality of coverage) are predicted for this winter when rates are reset, further hammering working families who are seeing their wages drop as the natural result of the ongoing Republican War on Unions.

Meanwhile, working-class Americans are further getting hammered with rising gasoline prices as Trump’s newfound Saudi “friends” are laughing all the way to the bank.

He can’t do anything successful for working-class people.

His tax-cut scam will, in the first weeks of October, collide with the Fed’s program of unwinding quantitative easing (QE). The Fed will be looking for purchasers of $800 billion or so of Treasurys on their balance sheet, while the Treasury Department must find buyers for around $1.2 trillion in new debt to continue handing U.S. tax dollars to multinational corporations and billionaires. This, David Stockman told me, will probably push us into the next great depression.

He can’t do it for the economy.

The drug companies are laughing at him (and pretending to go along by holding prices down… for a few months), his infrastructure investment ideas have been killed by McConnell and Ryan, and the GOP won’t even discuss his (Ivanka’s) campaign promises of more governmental help for low-income women and children.

He can’t do it to keep us well.

Which brings us back to why I didn’t include “Trump wanting better U.S. relations with Russia” in my list of reasons he’s so utterly obsequious when it comes to President Putin and Russian oligarchs.

We all would like a win-win of good relations with the world’s second largest nuclear power, but is Donald Trump moving us in that direction? The evidence shouts, “No, he can’t do it.” He’s simply too incompetent.

If Donald Trump—or any president, for that matter—wanted to accomplish a rapprochement with Russia (or any other nation), it must be done systemically.

From the State Department to Congress to our military/intelligence agencies, a president committed to working things out with Russia would be realigning the levers of American power to consistently offer both carrots and sticks, holding a clear-eyed vision of the goals and needs of both nations.

He’d be working with NATO to resolve issues that are troubling to the Russians while, at the same time, informing the American people about the history of this relationship and how it got to this point. (Ironically, that last would give him something to bash Bill Clinton with, as it was on his watch that America broke Bush’s promise to Gorbachev. Trump apparently can’t even competently abuse a political foe.)

Trump grew up in his daddy’s business, which he eventually inherited. As a CEO, he was an absolute autocrat, and never seems to have mastered the necessary arts of compromise and cooperation. His legendary business failures, frauds (yes, with convictions), and bankruptcies attest to his inability to accomplish things—and also to his childlike belief that the way to “get things done” is simply by ordering it so.

That’s not even how competently run companies work, much less entire nations. He’s just a third-level grifter, and just can’t do it.

Trump believes that if the ‘leaders’ of a nation can get along, everything will work out. While there’s actually a long history of personal chemistry between leaders leading to good results, dating back to the first years of our Republic and Jefferson’s relationship with Lafayette, this all has to happen within a much larger and more institutional framework, and Trump can’t do that.

Instead, Trump is handling U.S./Russian relations the way a small-time (non-public company, like Trump’s) CEO would negotiate a deal between their companies. Except that a competent CEO would have had his underlings work out most of the details before the first meeting took place—or at least immediately thereafter.

As if to flaunt his incompetence, Trump hasn’t even yet told his national security team what he agreed to in his private meeting with Putin.

It’s becoming pretty clear that he can’t work out a deal with Russia, and meanwhile North Korea is openly flaunting their defiance of him (despite the superficial changes that have recently occurred). Even Trump’s right-wing allies around the world are laughing at him: Bibi considers him a useful idiot, and the Saudis walked all over him (leading to millions of refugees in Yemen). Erdoğan is ignoring Trump’s pleas to release an imprisoned American pastor, and Xi, other than swapping financing for the Indonesian Trump property for ZTE’s future, is mostly ignoring him.

A few conservatives have tried to spin Trump’s blundering in North Korea and Russia as being on the level of Reagan first “going off script” with Gorbachev, something that did actually happen and eventually turned out well (at least until Milton Friedman’s libertarian “Chicago School boys” began advising the privatization of the former USSR’s assets, but that’s another article).

But the simple reality is that Reagan knew that government doesn’t work like a corporation (unless it’s an autocratic government), and therefore he let competent statesmen and stateswomen around him work out the thousands of small but critical details. Reagan at least had the experience of running California, with the world’s sixth largest economy and layer upon layer of fractious politics; his policies were terrible, but he knew how to get things done. Trump doesn’t.

Trump, in apparent thrall to the idea that he’s America’s “CEO President” or, worse, our soon-to-be Erdoğan or Mussolini, thinks he can have a “secret” conversation with Putin and he’ll just magically charm Russia’s far-more-sophisticated president into supine compliance with U.S. concerns.

Predictably, it doesn’t seem to be working out. He just can’t do it.

Trump should have learned from President Obama’s successful negotiations, leading to world-turning agreements with Iran and Cuba, that there is a way to work things out with former adversaries. Step one, in fact, is to bring in all concerned parties, as Obama did when he successfully worked out the Iran deal with Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany and the UN.

But Trump just can’t learn, and instead, like a spoiled child, he’s now trying to destroy two of the most important bipartisan and multilateral accomplishments of his own country’s early 21st century.

So, yes, we should all hope for better relations between the world’s two great nuclear powers. And if Donald Trump had shown any competence at anything other than demagoguery and race-baiting, it should be included on a list of reasons why he’s working so hard at his relationship with President Putin.

But the last two years tell us that Trump’s Russia outreach is almost certainly more about the money he owes Russian oligarchs than any desire for our two nations to “get along.”

It’s a good thing for world peace and stability to have an American president competent in international relations (and domestic governance, for that matter), and it would be a good thing for the U.S. and the Russian Federation to have a good—or even a great—relationship; most Americans would be grateful and supportive of such a president’s best efforts.

Proof of that is found in the early outreach to Trump from a number of Democrats, from Bernie to Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi, right after the election. They each said, in various ways, “Where he’s wrong, we’ll fight him—but when he’s right, like on trade, infrastructure, or strengthening Social Security, we’re prepared to work with him.” I even said similar things on my radio/TV program, and meant them.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump turned out to be so incompetent that he couldn’t even turn Democrats’ “yes” into anything real, and his promises to do things for average working Americans—or for world peace—were simply lies.

He just can’t do it.

Trump will go down as the most dangerously corrupt and tragically incompetent president in America’s history, and the most it seems we can hope for is that he won’t start World War III or flip America into fascism with his next tweet.

Those are the things, history tells us, an incompetent leader actually can do.

 

Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and author of more than 25 books in print. He is a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute.

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute .

Who Will Stop Trump From Taking Us Into War With Iran?

Donald Trump may be taking us to war on Iran and those who should be trying to stop him—from Congress to the grassroots—are too obsessed with Russia to even pay attention. Trump is well aware that a war with Iran would be a good diversion from his domestic and Russia travails, and could even help Republicans in the November elections. In 2012, when President Obama was down in the polls, Trump tweeted: “Looks like he’ll have to start a war or major conflict to win. Don’t put it past him!” So we certainly shouldn’t put it past Donald Trump.

On July 22, just after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had wrapped up a speech in which he compared Iran’s leaders to the Mafia, Trump sent out this threatening tweet, in all caps, to Iran’s President Rouhani. “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

Trump’s twitter tirade was in response to comments by President Rouhani warning that a U.S. war with Iran would be the “mother of all wars” and that Trump should not “play with the lion’s tail,” and earlier comments implying that if U.S. sanctions stopped Iran from exporting oil, Iran could close down the Strait of Hormuz, a slender waterway at the mouth of the Gulf through which 20 percent of the world’s oil is shipped.

Trump’s explosive tweet was reminiscent of the “fire and fury” comments he directed toward Kim Jong Un before he started negotiating with the North Korean leader, but it’s unlikely that this Twitterstorm will be the prelude to talks with Iran.

In the case of Korea, South Korea was pushing for talks and there was no significant U.S. lobby trying to stop them. With Iran, both Saudi Arabia and Israel have been trying to suck the U.S. into their decades-old feud with Iran. They both opposed the Iran nuclear deal. Israel has been advocating for the U.S. military to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, even though Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons of its own and Iran has none. Saudi Arabia insists that Iran is spreading terrorism throughout the region, even though the Saudis have spent billions of dollars spreading their intolerant version of Islam, Wahhabism. And let us not forget the terror of the Saudi bombing of Yemen, which has led to the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe.

Lobby groups from AIPAC to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies have also been stoking the conflict. So has the dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The MEK, a cult-like group that has killed Iranians and Americans alike and was on the U.S. terrorist list until 2012, is hated inside Iran for having sided with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran in 1980. In recent years, the MEK has spent lavishly (with what is rumored to be Saudi money) to acquire political support from liberals like Howard Dean to conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom were key speakers at the group’s May gathering in Paris. But the MEK’s most influential cheerleader is John Bolton, who has spoken at their meetings eight times, for which he was well compensated. Bolton considers the MEK a legitimate opposition movement even though they have absolutely no base of support inside Iran.

Trump delighted this dangerous melange of Iran opponents by withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal on May 8, despite Iran’s compliance with its side of the bargain, as continuously certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In defiance of the deal’s five cosponsors—Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia—the Trump administration unilaterally restored sanctions, which will go into effect in two waves during  August and November. The devastating sanctions not only prohibit U.S. companies from doing business in Iran, but will also punish foreign companies and banks. Despite efforts by European governments to shield their companies, the companies themselves—from oil giant Total to airplane manufacturer Airbus—do not want to take the risk and are already pulling the plug on trade deals they had negotiated with Iran. The value of the rial has plummeted this year by 40 percent. With the economy reeling from sanctions and the threat of war, along with mismanagement and corruption, Iranians have taken to the streets in protest.

The administration’s goal now is to cut off the Islamic Republic’s ability to export oil, its prime source of revenue and foreign exchange. These particularly crippling sanctions will go into effect on November 4.

The Trump administration believes that its policy of choking Tehran economically and supporting internal dissent can topple the government. “We are now very realistic in being able to see an end of the regime in Iran. The collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran is around the corner,” Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giulian shouted triumphantly to the cheering crowd at the June 2018 gathering of the MEK’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

An overthrow of the regime, with no entity ready to take over, would not only lead to chaos internally but could quickly spread throughout the region. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its allies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, are ready to attack both Israel and U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and on the myriad of military bases surrounding Iran. The Iranian government has already threatened to block oil shipments, a move that could rock the entire global economy.

Many Iranians we talk to desperately want to change their government, but not with U.S. intervention. They look around the region in horror, seeing how U.S. militarism has contributed to massive chaos, misery, and death in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine. They believe their best option is internal reform.

As a group of prominent Iranian-Americans stated in an open letter to Secretary Pompeo, “If you truly wish to help the people of Iran, lift the travel ban [although no Iranian has ever been involved in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Iran is included in Trump’s Muslim ban], adhere to the Iran nuclear deal and provide the people of Iran the economic relief they were promised and have eagerly awaited for three years. Those measures, more than anything, will provide the Iranian people with the breathing space to do what only they can do—push Iran toward democracy through a gradual process that achieves the benefits of freedom and liberty without turning Iran into another Iraq or Syria.”

Before all hell breaks loose with the Trump wrecking crew taking us into a cataclysmic conflict with Iran, Congress and the American public better get their heads out of the Russiagate sand and rush to stop them.

Editor’s note: The U.S. State Department listed Iranian opposition group MEK, or the Mojahedin-e Khalq, as a terrorist group from 1997 to 2012. Then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed MEK from the list after a lobbying effort by pro–regime change groups inside the United States. On July 19, peace activists Medea Benjamin and Ariel Gold of CODEPINK attempted to meet with officials from the MEK at the organization’s office in Washington, D.C An MEK member was not receptive to speak to them. Watch video of the interaction below.

Medea Benjamin is co-director of the peace group CODEPINK. Her latest book is “Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic.” On Sunday, Aug. 12, Benjamin will discuss her book at The Peace Center in Culver City, Calif., from 4-6 p.m. PDT, with a special introduction by Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer. For more information on the event and to purchase tickets, click here.

White House Says U.S., EU Aiming for ‘Zero Tariffs’

WASHINGTON — The Latest on President Trump’s trade policy (all times local):

4:28 p.m.

President Trump says the United States and the European Union have agreed to work toward “zero tariffs” and “zero subsidies” on non-automobile goods.

Trump also says the EU has also agreed to buy “a lot of soybeans” and increase its imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S.

Trump says the EU will become a “massive buyer” of LNG to help diversify their energy supply.

The president announced the agreements at the White House on Wednesday following meetings with European officials prompted by Trump’s trade dispute with the EU.

He declared it a “very big day for free and fair trade.”

__

2:10 p.m.

The head of the World Trade Organization is appealing to countries to speak out in favor of free trade and is warning about the vast negative consequences of a possible trade war after Trump administration tariffs imposed on key U.S. trading partners.

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo said he refused — as a policy — to point fingers, but alluded to “this dynamic of trade restriction” that could damage the world economy if it endures.

He told reporters in Geneva, “We are calling everyone who believes that trade is a force for good to speak up.” Silence, he says, is “as damaging as any action that leads to a trade war.”

He also warned about the “worst-case scenario” of a world without rules on trade, saying Wednesday that “the law of the jungle” would have devastating consequences for growth and jobs.

He said investors “are going to pull back, the economy is going to lose steam and over time jobs will be lost — millions of jobs will be lost.”

__

1:55 p.m.

European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (zhahn-KLOHD’ YUN’-kur) is telling President Donald Trump that the E.U. and U.S. are partners and allies, “not enemies,” and must work together at the start of trade negotiations between the two major economies.

Juncker told Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office that the trade talks are important. He’s suggesting the two sides discuss “reducing tariffs” instead of increasing them.

Trump notes the two continents together make up more than 50 percent of the world’s trade. Trump says it would be good if they removed all tariffs and trade barriers as part of the discussions.

Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on imported cars, prompting the Europeans to suggest they may place tariffs on $20 billion of American goods in retaliation.

__

1:40 p.m.

President Donald Trump is meeting with top European Union officials amid concerns of a growing trade dispute between the two economies over automobiles.

Trump says at the top of the Oval Office meeting with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (zhahn-KLOHD’ YUN’-kur) and trade chief Cecilia Malmstrom that he’s looking for a fair trade deal with the EU and is hopeful the leaders can work something out.

He says he’d prefer there be no tariffs or barriers at all.

European leaders are trying to talk Trump out of imposing tariffs on imported cars and auto parts, worried it would hurt both economies.

The European leaders have warned they’re ready to put tariffs on $20 billion of American goods if Trump puts the duties on car imports.

__

1:25 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan met with President Donald Trump Wednesday at the White House. McConnell told reporters afterward it was “pretty much a routine meeting” over the administration’s legislative agenda.

The GOP leader declined to say whether trade was discussed.

Earlier Wednesday, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, said he expected the meeting would focus on trade — with an “expression of concern about the endgame.”

The administration this week announced $12 billion aid for farmers amid fallout from Trump’s tariffs. Some Republican lawmakers have criticized the proposal, saying farmers want markets for their crops, not payoffs for lost sales and lower prices.

Trump did ask about the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, McConnell said. “He was interested in my thoughts on the Kavanaugh nomination, which I think is going along nicely,” McConnell said.

__

10:55 a.m.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (shee jihn-peeng) says the world faces “a choice between cooperation and confrontation” in remarks that criticized escalating U.S. tariffs on goods from China and other major trading partners.

At the annual summit of the BRICS emerging economies, held this year in Johannesburg, Xi said those who pursue “economic hegemony” will “only end up hurting themselves.”

“The current international order is not perfect,” the Chinese president said. But, Xi said, it should not be discarded “as long as it is rule-based, aims to be equitable and pursues win-win outcomes as its goals.”

He said “unilateralism and protectionism are mounting,” which he said hurts world trade.

__

10:30 a.m.

Ohio’s Republican governor is blasting President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his plan to provide $12 billion in direct payments to farmers and ranchers hurt by foreign retaliation.

Gov. John Kasich (KAY’-sik) says Trump’s imposition of tariffs on products from such allies as Canada under national security grounds was “completely absurd,” and that now the president is resorting to “farm welfare” when U.S. farmers want trade. The frequent Trump critic and 2016 rival for the GOP presidential nomination spoke as the 12-day Ohio State Fair opened in Columbus.

The Department of Agriculture on Tuesday announced a $12 billion, three-part plan to borrow money from the U.S. Treasury to pay farmers being hurt by the trade battles with China, Mexico, Canada and the European Union.

Kasich says that will only compound tariff damage.

__

7:10 a.m.

President Donald Trump is calling China “vicious” on trade and says it is targeting U.S. farmers specifically because “they know I love & respect” them.

Trump is also pushing back against critics of his latest plan to provide $12 billion in emergency relief for farmers, telling them to “be cool” because “the end result will be worth it!”

Farm-state Republicans say farmers want markets for their crops, not government payoffs for lost sales.

On Twitter, Trump says people “snipping at your heels during a negotiation” will only delay the process. He writes: “Negotiations are going really well, be cool. The end result will be worth it!”

He also tweeted: “China is targeting our farmers, who they know I love & respect, as a way of getting me to continue allowing them to take advantage of the U.S. They are being vicious in what will be their failed attempt. We were being nice – until now!”

___

1:24 a.m.

Some Republicans in farm states are dismissing the Trump administration’s plan to provide $12 billion in emergency relief in the wake of trade disputes between the U.S. and other countries, particularly China.

The GOP lawmakers say farmers want markets for their crops, not payoffs for lost sales and lower prices. Administration officials deny that the plan is a bailout.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue says the plan is meant for short-term relief while President Donald Trump and other officials work on trade deals.

The government’s action points to administration concern about damage to U.S. farmers from Trump’s trade tariffs and the potential for losing House and Senate seats in the Midwest and elsewhere.

The program is expected to start taking effect around Labor Day.

Trump Delays His Meeting With Putin Until 2019

WASHINGTON — The White House said Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s proposed Washington meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin had been delayed until 2019, citing the ongoing probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Putin had already sent signals that the fall White House meeting wasn’t going to happen.

National security adviser John Bolton said in a statement that Trump believed his next meeting with Putin should take place “after the Russia witch hunt is over,” a reference to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Bolton said they agreed the meeting would be “after the first of the year.”

While the statement signaled optimism that the Mueller probe would be completed by the end of this year, no timetable has been given for when it will be wrapped up and it could very well stretch into 2019.

The White House said last week that Trump had directed Bolton to invite Putin to visit Washington in the fall, moving quickly for a follow-up meeting amid the backlash over Trump’s performance at a news conference with Putin following their Helsinki summit last week.

Many members of Congress had objected to the two leaders meeting again in the fall and also said Putin would not be welcome on Capitol Hill.

The decision came days after the White House rejected a Putin-backed effort to hold a referendum in eastern Ukraine on the region’s future. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday, prior to the announcement, that the U.S. would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and demanded that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored.

Other signs had already emerged raising doubts about the second Trump-Putin summit. On Tuesday, Putin’s foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov threw cold water on the prospect of Putin accepting Trump’s invitation to visit the White House.

Ushakov told journalists in Moscow that no preparations were underway for a meeting in Washington and there were “other options that our leaders could consider,” such as the late November meeting of the Group of 20 in Argentina or another international event that both would attend.

Trump has long been seeking to bring Putin to Washington for a meeting. The president met with Putin on the sidelines of two international summits last year — first Germany, then Vietnam — and both times he invited his Russian counterpart to the White House, according to three current and former administration officials. He reiterated the invitation on a call with Putin in the spring.

__

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Darlene Superville and Lynn Berry contributed.

DeVos Plan Makes It Harder for Defrauded Students to Get Loan Relief

Students who are defrauded by their schools would have a harder time getting their federal loans erased under new rules proposed by the Trump administration on Wednesday.

The proposal, which aims to replace a set of Obama-era rules that were never implemented, drew applause from the for-profit industry but sharp criticism from advocacy groups that represent student borrowers.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the proposal lays out clear rules schools must follow to avoid trouble, while also protecting students harmed by deception.

“Our commitment and our focus has been and remains on protecting students from fraud,” DeVos said.

Under the proposal, students would be eligible for loan relief if they can prove their schools knowingly misled them with statements or actions that directly led them to take out loans or enroll at the school.

That would be a higher bar than rules finalized under Obama in 2016 after the collapse of two for-profit schools, Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute. Those rules allowed relief in a wider range of cases dealing with breach of contract.

Education Department documents supporting DeVos’ proposal argue that, while students should be protected from fraud, they also have an obligation to do their research before picking schools.

“Postsecondary students are adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions if they have access to relevant and reliable data about program outcomes,” the department said.

The new proposal is estimated to save nearly $13 billion over the next decade compared to spending estimates under the Obama rules, primarily by reducing the amount of loan relief awarded to students.

The department said it had received more than 100,000 borrower defense claims from students since 2015.

Schools would also have an opportunity to respond to claims of fraud, under the new proposal, which says schools should have a chance to defend themselves against unsubstantiated claims that could damage their reputations and their revenue.

It would also allow schools to force students into arbitration agreements barring them from suing the school, a practice used by some for-profit colleges that would have been banned under Obama’s rules.

The Education Department said the new rules would apply to loans taken out after July 1, 2019.

Opponents blasted the proposal, saying it places schools ahead of students and discourages victims from pursuing debt relief.

“It encourages abusive and predatory institutions to continue to rip off students with impunity, while slamming the door on the debt relief that Congress has instructed the department to provide to cheated students,” said Toby Merrill, director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard University.

Bob Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a former education official under Obama, said the proposal “is perhaps the most damaging action Betsy DeVos has taken since assuming office.”

“These changes would effectively strip students of their right to recourse if they believe that a college or university has misled them, making it next to impossible for defrauded students to get the relief they are entitled to,” he said.

But the changes were hailed as an improvement by the for-profit college industry and some Republicans.

Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the trade group Career Education Colleges and Universities, said previous versions of the rules allowed for “carte blanche approval” of fraud claims, to the detriment of schools and their students.

“The department has undertaken a thoughtful and deliberate approach to this rule, and we applaud their hard work on this important matter,” Gunderson said.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee and chairman of the Senate’s education committee, said DeVos’ proposal will prevent taxpayers from footing the bill for “unreasonable or unsubstantiated claims of fraud.”

“The Obama administration went too far in rewriting this provision by setting overly broad and vague standards and as a result, put taxpayers on the hook for too many loans,” he said.

Education officials under Obama created new rules to clarify the debt relief process after thousands of students said they were defrauded by for-profit colleges.

Before that, federal officials relied on a patchwork of state laws to determine if students deserved loan forgiveness.

Shortly before the updated rules were scheduled to take effect last year, DeVos delayed them and opened the process to rewrite them. Meanwhile, the Education Department’s work processing fraud claims has ground to a halt, with nearly 100,000 pending applications.

Georgia Lawmaker to Resign After Shouting Slur in TV Prank

ATLANTA—A Georgia lawmaker says “I will be resigning” after he exposed himself and yelled racial slurs on provocateur Sacha Baron Cohen’s cable TV show, according to a letter the Republican legislator sent to the speaker of the state House.

Rep. Jason Spencer had vowed to serve out his term despite the fallout. Now he’ll step down at month’s end, according to the letter he sent to Speaker David Ralston. The text of the letter was given to The Associated Press on Wednesday by Ralston’s spokesman, Kaleb McMichen.

Spencer’s one-sentence note read: “This email/letter is to serve as an official resignation notice to your office that I will be resigning my post effective July 31, 2018.”

In Sunday night’s broadcast of Cohen’s Showtime series “Who Is America?” Cohen poses as an Israeli military expert who persuades Spencer to take part in several outlandish exercises. The lawmaker is told they’re making a counterterrorism video.

Spencer repeatedly shouts a racial slur for black people after Cohen tells him the tactic is useful for drawing bystanders’ attention to an unfolding attack.

He also drops his pants, then his underwear, before backing his exposed rear end toward Cohen while shouting “USA!” and “America!” Cohen told Spencer this would incite fear in homophobic jihadists. The segment also shows Spencer speaking with a mock Asian accent while using a selfie-stick to surreptitiously insert a camera phone between the legs of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim clothing.

Ralston and others had called for Spencer’s immediate resignation.

In a statement Monday, Spencer apologized for the “ridiculously ugly episode,” but he initially refused to step down. McMichen told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution late Tuesday that Spencer had agreed to resign.

Spencer of Woodbine lost a Republican primary for his seat May 22, but he could have remained in public office through the November election.