The unmeasurable factors in the 2020 elections: fear and disgust

Last night's Democratic Party presidential candidate debate was an in-depth discussion about health care policy, but one candidate put her finger on something I have not been able to express. It is the underlying unease and disgust with Donald Trump that is hard to measure or to grasp in polls or even to express verbally. Marianne Williamson, the only non-politician on the stage, said it. ..it is the "dark psychic force of hatred ..racism and bigotry".. Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC expressed it another way: Donald Trump is scaring people.

I see it as the inevitable fallout of Donald Trump's demagogic techniques of governing by fear and hate, his personal attacks of people of color, his scoffing at the law to which he should be beholden, racist pot-stirring that disturbs civic peace, his unpatriotic welcoming of foreign governments to help him get re-elected, and his disgusting history of amorality in his approach to women.

We should also put some of this in terms of fear that our democracy is under attack from a president who aspires to be like his peers, dictators, and strongmen he admires in the world. Obvious to the public is his willingness to push aside the guardrails of checks and balances and an independent judiciary, to yearn for the end of term limits on the presidency, and to surround himself with only yes men with business and economic self-interests, or extreme ideological agendas,. While we whine the system we have now is not fair enough, dictatorships find fairness a challenge to their power to gain, control, and to keep their power. Those political science elements are one of many aspects of the fear Trump generates with his love of dictatorship and his disdain for democracy. Those are not the kind of changes so many expected in their bargain to vote for him in 2016 and choose a "strong leader", but they are disturbing to those who care about democracy. My fear is that these anti-democratic (small d) transgressions are not as disturbing as they should be to more. Yet the repercussions and damage to the freedoms we have taken for granted to dissent or speak out, or to have a peaceful regime change, are profound and insidious as they creep up on the unaware until it is too late to reverse them.

Other kinds of fears are so strong that many excuse his amoral, lying, and bullying behavior because Trump serves some personal, religious, or economic purpose or channels their own angst. Those fears are also real, caused by the economic turmoil in the manufacturing sector, the rise in power of other nations enough to challenge our once existence as the sole power survivor of World War II, and the changing racial makeup of the nation they see different from those existing years back. They see Trump as slowing down the changes they fear, even if he cannot roll it back. Instinctively Trump plays to these currents to win elections. He is both a symptom of their times and the fanner of the flames of hatred and the validation and inspiration to holders of such fears.

In the wake of the El Paso and Dayton mass killings a week later, Joe Biden spoke in Burlington Iowa addressing the moral issues and leadership in an epic and important address fleshing out his meaning that we are engaged in a battle for the soul of America. Pay attention to the latter half of his speech regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvx5F1yM-g&feature=share

Aug 11, David Frum of the Atlantic put the unmeasurables in other terms, including shame..
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trumps-conspiracy-theory-about-clintons-and-epstein/595915/?fbclid=IwAR3POaDIEG0mCVKtmvtmLGONSHxi5knqKDd3JOxSlND7iA6HVt0uKLvzlII

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/11/business/media/el-paso-killer-conservative-media.html


.

The art of free speech meets the Fraser sign code

The art of free speech met the Fraser sign code: result, a lawsuit

Update: 9 18 19
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/fraser-amends-sign-code-after-aclu-lawsuit/

A version of this was published by the Sky Hi News July 29, 2019
muftic-the-art-of-free-speech-meets-fraser-sign-code-and-results-in-a-lawsuit/

Local governments and municipal code enforcers across Colorado must have taken a second look at their sign code regulations lately. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the town of Fraser in July claiming the town "silenced clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it... The Constitution  (state and US) does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town's sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment".   Aside from the free speech and due process issues, the age-old question is "what is art"? That will not be resolved by this suit, but art has been a vehicle for political protest throughout history. Per the July 25, 2019, Sky-Hi News report, the Town is reviewing the matter.

 I cannot predict how the suit will be resolved, but I assume it is connected with the Town of Fraser's goal of turning this old logging town into an art center, therefore giving preference to content that is "art". At issue per the ACLU is that the Fraser sign code exempts art from adhering to physical restrictions such as size, numbers, and placement, in effect exempting one kind of content but not exempting other content like political expression.  The ACLU  also contends Fraser's ordinance was written so vaguely, those governed could not understand how to comply, depriving them of their right of due process.  The issue arose when Fraser residents erected signs on their private property within the town criticizing Donald Trump and climate change policies that exceeded the size and other physical restrictions placed on nonart signs. The residents then tried to make their signs into more artistic looking in order to comply and still were told they were subject to penalties and fines.

Throughout history, art has been used as a form of political protest.  In fact, in recent times, one work of art has been credited with ending a civil war.  Pablo Picasso's 1937  stunning "Guernica", an eleven by twenty-five-foot painting of disjointed figures in stark black /white/gray/blue cubism,  depicted the terror and horrifying results of a Nazi bombing of innocent civilians in a Basque, Spain, town.  Picasso was commissioned to paint the subject by the anti-fascist forces fighting the Spanish civil war.    Of course, this bombing of civilians in Spain was only the precursor to modern warfare and the widespread death and destruction of innocent civilians in World War II.  Nonetheless, it has also been taken as an anti-war message. One does not have to be a Picasso to paint what we would consider "art".

• I wonder what would happen if I displayed a full-size replica of Guernica with a caption: Stop selling weapons to the Saudis who use them to kill innocent civilians in Yemen. To put the shoe on the other foot, what would happen if a neighbor erected a very large sign replicating Andy Warhol type pop art style with multiple MAGA hats in the place of Campbell Soup cans, with captions exhorting support of Donald Trump? My neighbor may live in Fraser, but it is a hypothetical question: my home borders the town of Fraser, but I am in unincorporated Grand County, so the question regarding my sign would not arise from Fraser authorities.  The Town of Fraser has opened a can of worms.

_____________________________________________________________________________
 A personal note: my paths have crossed Guernica more than once: While I was a student at Northwestern, Guernica was on display at the Chicago Art Institute in the latter 1950s. Before it was returned to Spain in 1981, and during World War II until then, it was housed in New York's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). I lived in NYC and then visited New York and MOMA often. Each time I saw it, it got me in my gut.  Some call it the Mona Lisa of modern art, it is so iconic and compelling.  I am privileged to have seen the original of both. Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans are also on display at MoMA and I have seen them, too.

https://www.widewalls.ch/political-art/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbells-soup-cans-1962/

https://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/varios/madrid-to-celebrate-35th-anniversary-since-return-of-picasso-s-guernica/50000269-3035701

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/aclu-sues-fraser-over-sign-code/

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/25/aclu-lawsuit-fraser-free-speech-sign-code/

From the Colorado ACLU press release
“The Town of Fraser has silenced our clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it. The Constitution does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town’s sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment.” https://aclu-co.org/aclu-lawsuit-town-ordinance-silences-residents-freedom-of-speech/

https://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-25-FINAL-Complaint.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eccZvOAXZEIaQiwGiINnuNdFICFHIFrwROWT90T63QXXs81I84avwe_4
From the court filings:
1. Plaintiff Alan Jensen, a resident of Fraser, wishes to display three pieces of political art designed by Plaintiff Melinda McWilliams in his front yard to protest President Donald Trump and call for action on global warming. In response, the Town of Fraser has threatened to enforce its unconstitutional sign code (“Code”) against Plaintiffs, chilling their protected speech. 2. The Code is expansive and applies to all signs erected on private property within the Town. It prescribes myriad regulations for certain signs, including limits on the size, placement, type, duration, and a number of signs. 3. Yet even while substantially restricting certain signs, the Code exempts particular categories of signs based on their content and fails to narrowly tailor the restrictions to any compelling or substantial interest. Therefore, the Code is an unconstitutional content-based restriction that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs. 2 50277851.3 4. The Code’s categories are also poorly defined and substantially overlap, leaving residents in the dark as to whether a desired sign or artwork will trigger threats of prosecution. Therefore, the Code is also unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause and article II, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution.

No, Mr. President, the Mueller hearing was not the final chapter

The significance of Mueller's testimony yesterday is that Democrats got the sound bites they sought. Those damning sound bites will be replayed again and again that exposed the Trump party line relaying Mueller's findings as lies and deception to non-Trump media viewers and listeners. The proceedings and House Democrats reading directly from the Mueller report and Mueller's oral verification and confirmation are now part of the Congressional record forever available to the public and future historians.

The fat lady has not sung on this chapter of the Trump era. Mueller revealed FBI investigations into Trump and his circle concerning financial crimes and other counter-intelligence issues are still ongoing. House Democrats have already seen legislation to improve security measures against foreign nations attacking voter systems defeated by Senate stonewalling, but they may yet double down on their efforts to craft more legislation. House Democrats are weighing options about launching an impeachment inquiry in order to force key administration officials to obey their subpoenas. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes there is still a need to develop an even stronger case for impeachment than just relying on the evidence of the Mueller report. As it stands now, any impeachment referral to the Senate dominated by the GOP would find a dead end with votes along party lines.

The GOP House members in the July 24 hearing failed to contradict the facts and evidence of the Mueller report, but they tried to paint a picture of an anti-Trump bias of Mueller's staff that portrayed the negatives and neglected offsetting information,. They were attempting to "kill the messenger", if not the message. The GOP will be diverting attention from the substance of findings via Senate probes into the origins and bias of the Mueller report. Given the credibility of Mueller himself as just the facts person and his 400 plus pages of well-documented evidence, the GOP approach will appear as self-serving if they fail to find substantive evidence to show how any bias affected Mueller's fact-finding.

That Fox listeners will get these damning sound bites is yet to be seen, but for viewers of other media who may be fence-sitters and still questioning who is telling the truth, this may have some impact in helping them realize Trump and his supporters have misled or lied to them about what was in the report. Mueller directly contradicted the White House party line in six critical areas:

Mueller, a reluctant and no-drama witness, answered most questions in monotonous tones and one syllables as the Democrats read passages from his written report .and asked if Mueller agreed with his own words contained in the report. Mueller, when he did not confirm those contents with a yes or no, avoided drama by referring the questioner to the written version or refused to answer within the muzzled boundaries of the Attorney General's edicts. The advantage of one-syllable answers, though, is that there were no shades of gray and few modifiers attached to the answers. However, confirmed much which contradicted what Trump and his devoted followers have been told. Chief among them1) Trump was not exonerated of obstruction; 2) Per Mueller, the investigation into Russian active measures in 2016 was no witch hunt or a hoax; it was sweeping and systematic; 3) The Russians could do it again in 2020; 4) there were many examples of Trump and his cohorts lying about contacts with Russians, evidence and facts that went unchallenged by the GOP; 5) Russians interfered on behalf of electing Trump; 6) Examples of Trump's attempts to obstruct justice and the facts and evidence were not challenged by the GOP, but Trump was never indicted due to a rule against indicting a sitting president.

Robert Mueller sets off alarms for 2020 with his truth telling

The July 24, 2019 House hearings featuring Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his report gave Democrats a chance to push back against the Administrations' twisted spins. 1) Trump was not exonerated of obstruction;  2) Per Mueller , the investigation into Russian active measures in 2016 was no witch hunt or a hoax; it was sweeping and systematic; 3) The Russians could do it again in 2020; 4) there were many examples of Trump and his cohorts lies about contacts with Russians, evidence and facts  that went unchallenged by the GOP ; 5) Russians interfered on behalf of electing Trump; 6) Examples of Trump's attempts to obstruct justice  and the facts and evidence were not challenged by the GOP, but  Trump was never indicted due to a rule against indicting a sitting president.
Update: immediately after the hearings, the Senate GOP blocked bills protecting us from Russians and other foreign actors from hacking and sabotaging election results.  The message to Russia et al? Bring it on in 2020. The door is open.  https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/454742-mcconnell-blocks-two-election-security-bills?

Some wag called Mueller's afternoon testimony before the House Intelligence Committee as his "red bull moment" and he seemed to have a bit more passion and was quicker to understand and respond to questions than in the morning House Judiciary committee which focused on "obstruction". The headline phrase is that the Russian interference in 2016 was no hoax and no witch hunt. It was sweeping and systematic, causing long term damage to the US that must be addressed. and "they are doing it in the next campaign". He agreed with a questioner that he feared other candidates would work with foreign hostile forces to get help in a campaign and this could be "the new normal" Rep. Adam Schiff , Intelligence Committee chair, concluded the session with "accepting foreign help (in a campaign) is unethical, disloyal..and a crime." A point made was that it opens up the candidate to blackmail,..
. While Mueller claimed he did not investigate the term "collusion" because it was not a term in criminal law., as was "conspiracy", he affirmed numerous contacts and coordination with Russians by other Trump associates.
The most damning to the Trump administration was Mueller's confirmation with his findings that Russia intervened to help Trump (not Clinton), and that Wikileaks was indicted as a hostile foreign intelligence operation. Mueller verified findings that Trump and Don Jr welcomed the leaks and boosted Wiilileaks's dumping stolen hacks of the DNC. He called Trump and Don Jr.'s actions on this "problematic...an understatement". The GOP's main defense was regarding the Steele Dossier as an origin of the Russian investigation.. This was not a refutation of Mueller's findings, but an attempt to try to divert attention to the Steele Dossier as the reason for the investigation into Russian active measures., which Mueller refused to "speak to the Steele Dossier" because other agencies are looking into it. Another point made in the afternoon intelligence committee session by Trump was that Trump was seeking a lucrative deal in building Trump Tower. even as Trump was the party nominee in June and that numerous lies were made by Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney.. Mike Flynn and others in Trump's orbit also discussed sanctions relief with Russians, Mueller confirmed. Trump's party line had been he had nothing to do with Russia. .What was instructive was Mueller's affirming his report of the numerous contacts of Trump's associates with Russians: Manfort sharing polling data with  a suspected Russian agent, the Trump Tower meeting to get dirt on Clinton, various emails by Don Trump Jr. with Wikileaks and Trump's strategy to make use of Wikileaks dump of DNC emails, and mysterious meetings with Russian oligarchs in the Seychelles..Also, Mueller revealed that the FBI counter-intelligence investigations are on-going, including money laundering and blackmail and more.

Initial reaction to Muelle.r's testimony in the morning on obstruction issues was really sad: Democrats did get Mueller to state  Trump was not exonerated from the charge of obstruction. He either refused to answer questions or appeared to either have a hearing problem or was stalling to make sure he understood the question. If he had read his own report, it was not clear because evaded so many questions and appeared to fumble page references in spite of being told page and volume cited by the Democrats. His most frequent response was to refer to the report, while not reading the words of his own report aloud. What the Democrats did establish was that the President was not exonerated of obstruction of justice, a violation of law which included attempts to fire and influence witnesses, even if they were not executed. In the afternoon session, the GOP tried to claim Mueller did not have the power to exonerate anyone because exoneration was not included in the DOJ rules or legal interpretations or was a legal term. Trump was not charged because of a legal opinion and Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged. However, Mueller clarified later that the investigation did not even determine if a crime had been committed because of that rule. The facts and evidence in the Mueller report of attempted obstruction were not attacked in any substance or with counter-evidence or counter-arguments by the GOP but they based their attack that the DOJ was full of anti-Trumpsters and Democrats so the findings were tainted.. The GOP failed to dent the evidence that Trump did indeed attempt to obstruct justice with corrupt attempt, regardless of whether he carried out his orders. If the few basic exchanges between Democrats and Mueller on these key points are highlighted, Democrats can make lemonade of this lemon.
The reason Mueller never interviewed the President was addressed by Mueller in the afternoon session when he insisted it would take too much time to fight his subpoenas so the investigation could not be brought to a quick close.