Civics Education Is Vital

With the deletion of civics classes (required in my 60s junior high) anyone under the age of around 50 apparently has no true concept of governmental system definitions. Here are brief definitions related to the of the topic at hand — the looming downfall of our democratic republic.

re·pub·lic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

de·moc·ra·cy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

so·cial·ism: (def # 1) a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (In Marxist theory — def # 2) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism. 

Def # 2 is usually used as # 1 by right-wingers looking to disparage Democrats or anyone they deem as having left-of-center views.

(Definitions from Oxford Languages.)

The day after the signing of the United States Constitution a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor what we got a republic or a monarchy?" He answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."

While actually a republic, we usually refer to our governmental system as a democratic republic.

Democratic republic: While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. ... A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power. (U.S. Embassy in Argentina)

In May, 2021, freshman representative Marjorie Taylor Greene complained that Democrats “spent four years… calling Republicans Nazis.” She later added, “You know, Nazis were the National Socialist Party, just like the Democrats are now a national socialist party.”

Nazism: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer (Merriam-Webster)

Obviously, Greene was displaying her apparent ignorance of Democrats, democracy, Nazism, and civics in general. "Nazi national socialism," and the phony prophet to whom she claims fealty. According to the definition I found, she and her cult fit the definition of Nazism much better than her mischaracterization of Democrats—especially the part about superiority of race and their fuhrer.

While the delusional advocates of the extreme right continue to believe more in conspiracies than actual truths, many Americans just seem to have deficiencies in understanding differences in political systems. Though the left may have some preferences in common with Marxism (a stated favor of unions, for example) the vast majority are far from Marxist. The extreme right continues to equate "left" with "communist." Propaganda or ignorance?

Civics should be reinstated as a required class in educational institutions. I'm sure the right will cry "indoctrination" should this happen. After all, any attempt to fully educate on anything remotely political is so labeled by them. Democracy depends on a correctly educated citizenry o wannabe dictators and fascists push lies until they are believed.

Fascist- and dictatorial-leaning prospective leaders are gaining supporters throughout western nations. They claim populist trends as support for their rise. But populism is far from the goal. Power is all they seek. Power in this country is meant to be in the hands of the citizenry. Power in the hands of one or the few is something this country fought a war of independence from which to escape. 

Too many Republicans apparently fail to understand this nowadays. Take Mitch McConnell vowing to block anything Democrats want despite all evidence pointing to the country's citizens, and even his own constituents' preferences, as an example. From voting, to abortion, to who should have their taxes raised, the Senate under McConnell's leadership has consistently been opposed to everything the majority of citizens prefer.

Democracy in this country is under strident attack. It confuses me how so many who claim to be patriots who love freedoms can be so vehemently pro-dictator. Donald Trump and his advocates continue to use the freedoms they have to spread lies and disinformation while rightist legislatures and governors who follow his narcissistic aims propose laws to inhibit, curtail, and limit those same freedoms.

True patriots want factual information from which they can make informed decisions. The "Cult of Trump" and their conspiracy-loving adherents want a populace as ill-informed as possible. Along with dis- and misinformation they also prefer suppression of voting among those deemed by them as opposed to their socially repressive agenda.

Democracy must prevail. The freedoms we all cherish are at risk otherwise. Civics education, factual information, and stronger spines among elected officials now in office are essential.

Religious discrimination

• dis·crim·i·na·tion /də skriməˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. 

 Why do we discriminate against others?  (Explanation from ReachOut.com) 

• "Individuals or an organisation are discriminating against you if they treat you differently from everyone else because of something about you that they don't respect. Discrimination can be a horrible and hurtful experience and, in many instances, it's against the law."

One day on Twitter I commented in a reply to someone that I felt discriminated against as an atheist. The original poster lists herself as one, but said there was no discrimination and I was wrong feeling oppressed. I corrected her in that I said "discriminated," not "oppressed." But the exchange, which went on for several posts and gathered another against my view, got me wondering about the current idea of discrimination among those younger than 50 or 60 years of age (which both my "adversaries" in the discussion were, I believe). With the protests involving Black Lives Matter going on, just how do younger people view the idea of discrimination, especially if they equate it with oppression?

The recent Supreme Court moot decision on making religious gatherings exempt from coronavirus restrictions is a good example. TV pundits and commentaries are all about how unnecessary it was (Gov Cuomo said the restriction was already expired) and at least one TV commentator I heard mentioned the current makeup of the conservative-majority Court, but none have touched on the other long term consequences (unless networks I haven't heard have done so) — anti-religious discrimination. 

The Court's ruling effectively raises the profile of religion and further ensconses it as an essential part of American culture. Both Christian and Jewish leaders pressed the suit. While these two religions are intrinsically discriminatory against anyone who doesn't follow their teachings, radical conservatives of each can be especially so. And while the US Constitution declares no religious preference or deference (the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment) Evangelical Christians have long ignored this and influenced politicians to enact policies and laws giving preference to these Christians and their repressive agenda.

(For the past couple of decades, Evangelicals have voiced an affinity for Jews and Israel, but only because the Hebrews fit into the Christian "End Time" mythology.)

In exempting churches and synagogues from pandemic regulations, the Supremes have elevated religious groups above measures intended to reduce the risks to the populace (the pandemic in this case) and afforded them benefits for which religion does not deserve despite comments like the ones made by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan ("Our churches are essential," he said. Notice he only said "churches.") How much leverage does religion have over policies that affect all of us and how much discrimination will the Court's ruling ultimately entail? Will younger citizens recognize the discrimination or see it as normal until it's viewed as oppressive? The trend towards theocratic rule has gone on long enough. It's past time to purge this supposed religion-neutral country of religious overtones.

NORML plea for Criminal Justice

Received this email from @NORMAL. Thought I'd pass it along.


June 17, 2020

Today, members of the House Judiciary Committee are marking up the Justice in Policing Act, which seeks to amend federal guidance over certain law enforcement activities.

Many of the bill’s components are steps in a positive direction, such as banning “No-Knock” drug raids by law enforcement. This is a recommendation that many on NORML’s Legal Committee have long advocated for, as the proliferation of these raids have often led to tragic results.

But while lawmakers focus largely on police behaviors, we at NORML also wish to raise questions about police powers. Over the years, law enforcement in this country have been granted extraordinary powers — powers that often provide them with the ability to interact with citizens whenever and wherever they please. In many cases, the rationale for these ever expanding police powers has been to enforce the so-called war on drugs.

In fact, one of the most common pretexts provided by police for interacting with citizens is that they suspect that someone has either used or is in possession of marijuana. That is why, during these hearings, Rep. Lou Correa has wisely suggested the need to amend federal anti-marijuana laws should go hand-in-hand with reforming policing.

Tell your Representative that it is inexcusable that the House has yet to advance legislation to end marijuana prohibition.

Speaking recently with Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler, Rep. Correa recently asked, “How do you think that the legalization of cannabis would help for social justice in this nation?”

Professor Butler’s answer was instructive. “We think it would help create equal justice under the law.”

One must only revisit the origins of marijuana prohibition in America to understand how ending its criminalization will address issues surrounding racially-based policing. Look no further than the sentiments of its architect, Harry Anslinger, the founding Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who declared: “[M]ost [marijuana consumers in the US] are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. … [M]arijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes. … Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

It is clear that marijuana prohibition was largely born out of prejudice and racial animus and its enforcement continues to disproportionately impact people of color.

That is why NORML is demanding that federal lawmakers end marijuana criminalization, by way of either including language in the police reform bill to deschedule cannabis, or having House lawmakers pass the MORE Act, which cleared the Judiciary Committee last November.

Join me in telling your Representative that we can’t wait. End marijuana criminalization now.

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, I have no doubt that public and political debates over racially motivated policing and systemic racism will persist in living rooms, city council chambers, and within the halls of Congress. And while marijuana policy reform alone will not undo all of the most egregious practices that have led to the recent public outcry of Black Lives Matter and others, ending cannabis prohibition will help to improve the situation by limiting law enforcement’s power to stop and arrest over half a million citizens annually for possessing a substance that never should have been made illegal in the first place.  

Let’s do this,

Justin Strekal
NORML Political Director

P.S. During these times of global pandemic, NORML’s efforts have largely been supported by our amazing sustaining members who contribute a few bucks a month to help ensure we have the resources for the long fight. If you can, please kick in $5, $10 or $20 a month to help us keep going.

NORML and the NORML Foundation 1420 K Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 483-5500 • norml@norml.org

The Impeachment Clauses Were Written for Donald J Trump

United States Constitution

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal." —President Richard Nixon, in a 1977 interview with David Frost.

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." — Donald Trump, January 23, 2016

President Richard Nixon did more to concentrate power in the executive branch than any president before him. With the authority he claimed, he refused to spend funds Congress appropriated and he blocked key decision makers from being questioned by congressional committees. This usurpation of Article 1 power was among the articles of impeachment that were to be levied against him.¹

"Carl Bernstein [said] that Richard Nixon was “sui generis”, he was uniquely corrupt and it was hardly thinkable that any US president would be so irremediably crooked.

In support of that contention he said new information about Richard Nixon had emerged which showed that he had attempted to denigrate the name of his predecessor in the White House, Lyndon Johnson, and he even had urged that a safe supposedly holding incriminating documents concerning Lyndon Johnson be blown open. Also that Richard Nixon had instigated surveillance on political reporters and journalists to an unprecedented extent."²

After Nixon resigned to avoid the stigma of impeachment, Congress worked to rein in the notion of an imperial presidency. They were largely effective but Dick Cheney and like-minded Republicans had garnered support for reinstating presidential superiority. Cheney got his break when George W Bush chose him as a running mate and the tragedy of 9/11 supplied ample opportunity.

Republicans were delighted until Barack Obama was elected. Now they decided that a Democratic president was abusing the powers they had worked so hard to confer and consistently cried "dictator" (conveniently forgetting that Bush said governing would be easier in a dictatorship).

Now, the GOP is once again suffering from selective amnesia and are reveling in Donald Trump's wholehearted employment of and blatant abuse of powers they found so untenable for Obama. Their vindictive partisanship, so obvious during Obama's 8 years (refusing to hold confirmation hearings for the judiciary culminating in denying the President his right of a SCOTUS nomination), has become insidious after Democrats retook the House in 2018. To the detriment of our democratic republic, their tunnel vision has led them to fully support a man who was vilified by a vast majority of them when he was campaigning for the Oval Office.

Trump has made Nixon look like an amateur when it comes to abuse of power. He has usurped Congressional powers in trade and allocation of funds, ignored both law and tradition in areas such as nepotism, politicking, personal financial gain, and made a mockery of national security by revealing classified information to unsavory world leaders, including adversaries, and belittling the intelligence community.

For two years the Republican Congress aided him in running rampant, ravaging the tenets of the Constitution and undoing every positive social and ecological gain made by President Obama. (On Trump's part, more out of spite and animosity against Obama than ideology.) The only allowance made to the rule of law was acquiescence in appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our elections and what part the Trump campaign may have played.

As Mueller did his job and uncovered a multitude of illegalities, Republicans and right wing media levied a continual barrage of insinuation and accusations of bias and overstepping of permissible probes. The Democratic House, under Nancy Pelosi's rule, allowed Trump to continue to abuse his authority and his oath as the idea of impeachment was deemed too risky by Pelosi. Hope's were unfortunately laid at Mueller's feet.

To the dismay of increasing numbers wanting to impeach, Mueller punted. Though finding at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense, a dubious DOJ memo saying a sitting president can't be indicted led Mueller to merely aver, "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so." William Barr, chosen by Trump as Attorney General and protector, quickly spun the noncommittal report as an exoneration. Republicans and their media arm, as usual more effective than Democrats at spin, claimed victory and the House allowed Trump to continue to ride roughshod over the Constitution and the separation of power.

Below is my list of abuses, illegalities, and violations of the oath of office committed by Trump. Pelosi has allowed these travesties to go unanswered on the mistaken idea that, since the sycophantic Senate wouldn't convict, there would be a backlash that could return the House to the Republicans. That's a disparaging view of the citizenry. Once the multitude of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is enumerated in open hearings the public will be unable to ignore their 2016 electoral college blunder. In addition, seeing the Senate Republicans excuse such criminality might bring out enough voters who care about country over party to hand that body to the Democrats as well. Hope lies eternal....

Many pundits, along with Pelosi, say voting Trump out in 2020 is the best path, amounting to his "indictment." Depending on an election outcome is more dangerous than impeachment. Allowing Trump's presidency to go unchallenged by the House's oversight mandate validates his blatant violation of the oath and lays a path for the next wannabe dictator to continue to abuse power. After all, a known conman who promised to run the country like his business (despite widely publicized multiple bankruptcies) and laid out his racism and bigotry in his campaign announcement speech was placed in the White House by our undemocratic electoral college on 77,000 votes. Impeachment, whether or not successfully removing this stain on our country, is imperative.

Finally, on September 24, 2019, the Speaker gave her imprimatur to impeachment hearings. The straw on her camel's back was the most blatant national security danger of Trump's most recent illegality (last on the list).

High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

• Emoluments Clause violations
• Usurping Article 1 powers (Illegally dictating trade policy—specifically tariffs, EOs to bypass Congress)
• Campaign finance violations (unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen conviction)
• Destroying documents and communications in violation of Presidential Records Act of 2014
• Virtually inciting race war, xenophobia, and disparaging political opponents (Article 10 of Andrew Johnson's impeachment was proposed by Massachusetts representative Benjamin Butler. It charged Johnson with making speeches “with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues” with the intent to disgrace Congress.)
• Kidnapping
• Refusing asylum in violation of US and international law
• Promising pardons for land theft to build his wall
• Obstruction of justice (in Russian interference investigation and in all other oversight attempts by refusing to allow witnesses to testify; Mueller listed at least 10 instances alone)
• Witness tampering, including making up false executive privilege and "granting" private citizens use of it ("the president does not get to instruct a private citizen to not respond under oath to questions. add it to the articles of impeachment"—tweet by Jennifer Rubin)
• Cooperation w/ Russia in interfering in election of 2016
• Consistent aid in Putin's efforts to discredit democratic rule by refusing to admit election interference, misappropriation of military funds meant for European Defense Initiative; withholding aid to Ukraine
• Habit of divulging classified info (sub locations revealed to Philippine dictator, info given us by Israel told to Russian officials [caused intel to withdraw important source close to Putin for fear of their life], images from Iran which possibly reveal sensitive intel methods [or more leaked intel Israel gave us] so he could tweet snarky sympathy to Iran)
• Overuse of "acting directors" to avoid embarrassing confirmation hearings
• Pathological lying
• Alienating allies, frequently to curry favor with Putin or other autocrats
• Falsifying official documents from NOAA (18 U.S. Code § 2074)
• Subjorning violations of Hatch Act
• Attempting to use position to prosecute not only political enemies but ex-govt employees who tell unpleasant truths about Trump (Comey, Clinton, Obama, McCabe, Brennan [security clearance revoked])
• Extorted auto manufacturers to keep them from signing on to higher emissions standards
• Pelosi's "straw" — Admittedly pressuring Ukraine to dig up, or fabricate, dirt on Hunter Biden to smear his supposed opponent in 2020 election³

¹Watergate Articles Of Impeachment - Watergate.info
Full text of the Watergate Articles of Impeachment as passed by the US House
https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachmentExcept for the paragraph on Watergate break-in, it could be written for Trump 

²Richard Nixon committed far greater crimes than the Watergate break-in 
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/richard-nixon-committed-far-greater-crimes-than-the-watergate-break-in-1.1433510

³A whistleblower filed a complaint against Trump which is supposed to involve promising someone something he shouldn't. The Inspector General deemed it urgent but the DNI failed to send it to Congress in defiance of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. While reports of the concern led to the uncovering of the extortion by Trump of Ukraine, there has been no actual linking of the two. An uncharacteristic vote in Senate unanimously passed a resolution to hand over the whistleblower complaint.




A more succinct list of Trump's criminality, with links to further elucidate on each:
"Donald Trump vs. the United States of America"
Just the facts, in 40 sentences.
New York Times, 9/22/2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/opinion/trump-ukraine-whistle-blower.html

Anti-Israeli policy doesn't equal anti-semitism

The New York Times apologized for an "anti-semitic" toon in its international edition depicting yamulka-wearing Trump being led by dog w/ Star of David collar.

I see the toon as more anti-Israel, specifically their RW influence on US policy and Trump's backing of Netanyahu, than anti-semitic. There is a difference between ethnic bigotry and opposition to policy. It's a shame that sensitivity to our current divisive culture can't seem to recognize the difference.

Yes, Israel and Jews are an inseparable pairing, but the opposition of nearly two thirds of American Jews to the invasive land stealing and discrimination of Palestinians and AIPAC's influence in our policy decisions is evidence that displaying antagonism to policies is not the same as ethnic bigotry.

Some may say that it's too soon after the vicious killings at synagogues to bring this up, but I say it's more necessary now. The white supremacist terrorists make us too sensitive to the targeting of an ethnic group indelibly linked to a whole country when their targets are more diverse (don't forget the African-American churches in Louisiana) and even American Jews separate Israeli policy from Jews in general.

Don't let wholesale bigotry cloud the picture of who the real enemies of sanity and community are.

_____________

I also posted this on Democratic Underground. One response there noted:

"It was anti-semitic. The dog is wearing a Star of David and Trump was wearing a yamulka. Both jewish symbols not just Israeli symbols. Now remove those symbols, give the dog Netanyahu's face. Even better, showing Trump as Netanyahu's lap dog."

Point taken on that.

Healthcare Issues link to Mueller Report for Dems

Polls say healthcare is voters' #1 issue so Democratic leadership use that as an excuse to let Trump's impeachable offenses go largely unpunished. This misses an opportunity to rid us of the infestation of self-serving, party-first-&-let-country-be-damned Republicans in Congress.

McConnell made their absolute partisanship clear in November 2008 when he vowed to make President Obama a 1-term POTUS and confirmed his stance by abrogating Senate's duty and ignored Judge Garland's nomination. Then, despite excoriating the idea of Trump as POTUS during 2016 campaigns, he, Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz and others quickly jumped on Trump's snakeoil wagon and with cheerleaders like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes have fully supported the corrupt administration in its steamroller destruction of every environmental, economic and social advance made in the past 30+ years. While Affordable Care Act has largely escaped over 50 attempts at repeal, they're still trying.

The links between the corruption and attacks on ACA in Trump's administration and his Congressional boosters has been ignored, or at least not defined. This misses an opportunity by Democratic leadership and presidential candidates to both show they are the party determined to increase healthcare access and affordability while giving a solid reason to turn both houses of Congress blue. The Mueller Report made official what has been obvious in the administration but the Republican Senate's complicity has mostly been gone unmentioned. Holding on to their majority leads them to resist correcting problems such as election security. After all, Russia Saudia Arabia and other foreign powers like having a manipulative asset in the White House and a right wing legislative body. Putin's apparatchiks helped elect Trump not just in social media manipulation but by directly invading voting systems. Mueller made this clear. So is it any wonder Congressional Republicans resist passing laws to bolster election security?

Democrats need to stress their fealty to the rule of law and their interest in citizens' concerns by continuing to reveal the depth of corruption of the administration and Congressional Republicans and that cleaning house, both the White House and Capitol, is the best route to healthcare issues as well as the others that top the polls of American voters. There is no separating concerns of healthcare, gun violence, security (both national and electoral), Social Security, Medicare and the corruption that has become the face of the Republican Party. Democrats must shout loud about the connection.

The GOP Is Out of the Closet — Update

The goals of the conservatives in the Republican Party have not changed much in the past 40 years: cut taxes, reduce those troublesome regulations businesses must deal with, roll up the social safety net for the freeloaders, squash organized labor, and support the traditional family — even when it means women must bend to the will of over-moralistic religionists and LGBT folk have no right to a family.

Many Republicans claim their party is dying; being taken over by a radical new “Trumpism.” Yet this ”old” GOP & the “Party of Trump” have a lot in common despite Mr Trump's so-called populism. He ranted about Hillary Clinton’s ties to Wall Street during the campaign but his proclamations and signing of Republican bills have removed much of the protections put in place to prevent the financial barons taking advantage of “regular folk” — and removing protections meant to prevent another financial meltdown.

Trump's, and “old Repubs’," catering to the 1% is only a fraction of the anti-populist actions of the current administration. The Washington Post has compiled an extensive list ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/24/what-trump-has-undone/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.caa455fe3322 ). But the conservative agenda is not the only aspect of so-called mainstream Republicanism Trump has inflicted upon the country. He has also blown off the door on a 50-year skeleton in the GOP closet.

“In the letter written on vice presidential stationary, Nixon explained to a North Carolina woman his reason for supporting school integration with a much broader endorsement of treating everyone equally.
‘Basically, I believe in working for full opportunity for all our citizens, regardless of race, creed, or ancestry,’ he wrote on September 29, 1959. —From the Washington Examiner

Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips in 1970: “.. Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans…”

That skeleton was racism. While Nixon seemed to express a belief that it was even against American interests (“...Nixon also expressed a concern that if the U.S. was viewed as "racists," most of the world would back the Communists and ‘leave us disastrously isolated in a hostile world.’" —Washington Examiner), Republican animosity towards African-Americans was well-ingrained.

Civil rights advocates were invited to join the Republican Convention in 1960. But it was a dishonest overture. From Ben Fountain in The Guardian:

“Goldwater delegates berated and shook their fists at the press, and African American delegates were ‘shoved, pushed, spat on and cursed with a liberal sprinkling of racial epithets.’ Something new and nasty was afoot; Republicans were acting like a bunch of Dixiecrats. One black delegate had his suit jacket set on fire. The southern caucus at the convention named its hotel headquarters “Fort Sumter” after the starting point of the civil war. Jackie Robinson spent several “unbelievable hours” on the convention floor, and summed up his experience thus: ‘I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.’”

Nixon, himself, came out of that closet once he was in the White House:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” —Vox, quoting story by Dan Baum: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon  

Tricky Dick used racial fear to help support his ill-chosen “War on Drugs.” He could demonize enemies by feeding into what was seen as an ingrained apprehension. So much for racism being against American interests. The infamous Nixon tapes show his previous anti-racist tracts were a political front. Jews, blacks and Italians were targets of his ranting on several of the recordings.

Ten years later, Lee Atwater, who had been one of the architects in the "southern strategy,” was an operative in the Reagan White House. He had favored buzz words like “forced busing” as substitutes for the taboo “N word” in working to turn Dixiecrats into Republicans. It was not a fluke that Reagan’s first major speech as a nominee was at the Neshoba County fair near Philadelphia, Mississippi. In his campaign he polished Atwater’s buzz words into what we now call “dog whistles.”

Reagan filled his policy speeches with dog whistles to that GOP skeleton. In pleas for supporting his conservative dislike of the social safety net and his voodoo economics, he brought up the spectre of the “welfare queen.” Never mind that African-Americans didn't dominate the welfare rolls, those hearing the whistle knew who he meant. Every conservative call for welfare reform refers to that false meme.

Reagan eagerly adopted right wing evangelicals into the Republican fold as honored members. Feeling their power wane after the 1950s (when they managed to get God included in the Pledge of Allegiance), Reagan rewarded their support by including LGBT community in his quiet whistling. HIV/AIDS was called GRID by the moralists who saw it as a sinner’s deserved punishment. That straights were also caught up in their god’s judgement was easily ignored.

The Republican discrimination war openly targeted “takers” who weren't just non-whites on welfare but now included the 99% Romney so disparaged. Since, generally, Democratic voters outnumber Republicans, part of the GOP’s 50-state-strategy was gaining control of state governments so districts could be gerrymandered to ensure federal power. And while they had state legislatures in hand, they could further disenfranchise Democratic voters, including most African-Americans, by making voting more difficult. They vaguely tried guarding the closet door by cloaking the racial aspect in supposed election viability. After all, no one likes voter fraud. Trump has continued pandering to fears of voting irregularities. In doing so, he again reneges on his populism con since those who are most affected by the Republican voter ID laws are the working folk for whom he claims to champion.

Those “mainstream" Republicans can no longer hide their skeleton. The main difference between them and Trump (paradoxically considering Mr Trump's aversion to veracity) is honesty — about racism anyway. Discrimination lies at the core of virtually every social law brought up by Republicans and every one of them has a moralistic &/or racist basis. While some of the more seasoned of the GOP’s pols still try to claim reasonable grounds for these laws, the closet door is wide open. And anyone who is not a well-to-do White male Protestant is in the crosshairs.

Trump rails against immigrant rapists and violent “animals,” and the Repub Congress fight against rational immigration reform and support the wall to keep them out. No one mentions building a wall along the northern border — Latinos don't cross that one.

Trump sees “fine people” among the white supremacists and the rest of his party make lame admonishments against their actions while never bothering to admonish Trump and his blatant acceptance of their racist core.

The supremacists claim the same brand of discriminatory “Christianity" as right wing evangelicals so they suffer no rancor from the religionists who cling to the adulterous Trump. The hypocritical moralists overlook Trump’s blatant misogyny because he panders to their own desires to have total control over women, especially where reproductive rights are concerned.

Black football players protest police violence against minority communities with a gesture offered by a veteran: kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem. Trump uses it to fire up his racist base by ignoring the point of the protest and claiming the players are being unpatriotic and disparaging the military. The rest of the GOP happily jumps on the bandwagon. After all, Black Lives don't Matter.

To quote again from Ben Fountain’s article: “Cut taxes and regulation, roll up the social safety net, squash organized labor to nil. It’s worked out wonderfully for the job creators. While the true believers in the base were fighting the Kenyan in the White House over prayer in the schools and immigration and the hetero sanctity of marriage, tidal waves of money have been flowing upstream to their bosses.”

As long as Trump continues to line the right pockets and fire up the discriminatory base that Republicans have counted on for so long, they hedge and rationalize and try to cloak their skeleton in the closet with patriotic colors but it can't be hidden in the closet any longer. Sunlight is bleaching its bones.

"Trump didn't pull the trigger in Christchurch. But the man who did praised him as a symbol of 'white identity'." —subtitle of Salon article by Chauncey DeVega, 3/15/19


"Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This"
The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously. —Adam Serwer, The Atlantic


"Mail bomb suspect appeared to be fervent Trump supporter" —Rebecca Morin, Politico

"White Supremacists, Extremists Celebrate President Trump’s Latest Racist Tweets" —Anti-Defamation League, 7/15/19

The above articles show that Trump deserves the title of "Racist-In-Chief." The media has skirted the epithet since his bigotry-filled speech announcing his candidacy. Hopefully the shyness in truth-telling has gone the way of the avoidance in calling him a liar — in the circular file.

His Congressional and White House minions have helped prove me right when I first posted this in June of last year. Even those who make a shy stab at disagreeing with what Trump said about the Congresswomen known as "The Squad," still claim the tweets and statements in White House garden were not racist.

______
As I was researching for this, I came across Ben Fountain's article in the Guardian — "How the Republican party’s dog-whistle appeal to racism, refined by Richard Nixon and perfected by Ronald Reagan, led inexorably to Donald Trump." I suggest you read his better written explanation: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/05/trump-reagan-nixon-republican-party-racism