++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Training against the future terrorist threat:
CTC Sentinel | September 2020
| |||||
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Observations from a friend of my Australian Cousin:
The title “Normalisation Agreement” forged between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and later with Bahrain didn’t quite fit the bill for President Trump’s extravaganza at the White House on Tuesday.
I don’t know if the president deserves the credit for the catchy “Abraham Accords” title, but it certainly has a more biblical ring to it, something his evangelist supporters appreciate.
At this juncture I want to explore the link to our shared patriarch. The genealogy from Adam to Abraham neatly arranged in the Book of Genesis reveals that the ancients were all supercentenarians, blessed with extraordinary virility. Methuselah lived to be 969, but his grandfather Jared died when he was 967. I doubt if Jared Kushner will repeat that performance. Adam was apportioned only 930 years. When our sages debated why he wasn’t given a round 1000, they reasoned that 70 years were set aside for King David
The psalmist himself explained the cutback in longevity”
“The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”
Psalm 90:10Alternatively you can take the advice of of “Sportin Life”, in Gershwin’s “Porgy and Bess”:
“It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so.”Fast forward to this week’s events. The Abraham Accords are undoubtedly a watershed moment in Arab-Israeli relations.
Jeffrey Goldberg editor in chief of The Atlantic wrote in Defense One“The agreement is a victory for Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and the de facto ruler of the Emirates; Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia; Benjamin Netanyahu, the forever prime minister of Israel; and President Donald Trump. Each of these men needed this agreement rather urgently:
Bin Zayed, because he realizes that the UAE. is deeply unpopular with Democrats (the UAE. leadership put itself on President Barack Obama’s bad side and was a bit too ostentatiously relieved when Trump came into office), and so understands that he needs to make his country look helpful and constructive to Joe Biden, just in case.
Bin Salman, without whom these Gulf states, Bahrain in particular, would not dare make such a bold and public move, needs this agreement for much the same reason: He has to prove to Democrats (and to Europeans) that he is a constructive and moderate leader, and not merely a murderer of dissidents.
Netanyahu benefits in at least three ways: First, he diverts attention from his miserable handling of the coronavirus pandemic (Israel is moving into a new, three-week lockdown on Friday). Second, he manages to make “peace” with Arabs who are not Palestinians, the particular group of Arabs he’d most like to avoid. And third, he buttresses his reputation among Israeli voters as a statesman on the world stage.
Donald Trump, because he can tell his followers, particularly his more gullible followers, that he has brought peace to the Middle East. (Not that American voters reward presidents who bring peace to the Middle East; just ask Jimmy Carter.)
In many ways “The Abraham Accords” amount to an arms deal. The UAE. and other states that now engage with Israel will find themselves armed with a better class of American weaponry. The U.S. has pledged for a very long time to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge, but the UAE. in particular might have just arranged for itself a similar promise.”
On Tuesday ahead of the Abraham Accords ceremony Prime Minister Netanyahu asked President Donald Trump for a few military hardware items, namely, 12 Boeing V-22s (A tiltrotor aircraft that takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter, and once airborne, can convert to a turboprop airplane capable of high-speed and high-altitude flight), another squadron of F-35s to bring the total Israeli fleet to 75, and a very early delivery of two Boeing KC-46A aerial refuelling tankers.
Arie Egozi reporting for Breaking Defense said, “The Israeli request will be based on an accelerated process aimed at getting all the approvals before the November presidential elections” The request is also likely to include a replacement for Israeli Apache AH-64A combat helicopters that are planned to go out of service in 2025.An unnamed source claims that Israel will also ask for “increased numbers” of bunker buster bombs, usually thought to be designed to strike Iranian nuclear sites.
The request for a new weapons package would be in addition to the existing Foreign Military Financing agreement with the US. The current agreement, signed in 2016, increased US assistance from $ 34 billion in the decade to $38 billion between 2019 and 2028.
“Why is Israeli seeking so much new gear?” Egozi asked, “It’s not, Israeli sources explain, because of the prospective sale of F-35s to the UAE, but because they believe this deal will open a new arms race in the region and they want to stay ahead of it. Israel is also concerned about the possibility of leadership changes in some Gulf countries.”
Understandably, Iran feels threatened by the normalisation agreements. A month ago when Israel and the UAE negotiated their agreement, a spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said there would be dangerous consequences for the United Arab Emirates if it goes ahead with the agreement.
Nonetheless, “With its economy in trouble, Tehran will have to talk to Washington. But the next administration shouldn’t rush things.” Advised Ariane Tabatabai and Henry Rome in a joint assessment they wrote for Foreign Policy, “No matter who wins the U.S. presidential election, Joe Biden or President Donald Trump, the next administration will have to confront a dangerous situation with Iran.
(Ariane Tabatabai author of the forthcoming No Conquest, No Defeat: Iran’s National Security Strategy.Henry Rome is the senior Iran analyst at Eurasia Group, the global political risk research and consulting firm)
Although Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign has wrecked the Iranian economy, it has failed to produce Iran’s capitulation or collapse. Instead, as international inspectors affirmed this month, Tehran is closer to having a nuclear weapon today than when Trump took office. No matter who wins the U.S. presidential election, Joe Biden or President Donald Trump, the next administration will have to confront a dangerous situation with Iran. A key question facing the next administration is how and when it would take the first step toward reengaging Tehran.
In the United States and Europe, observers increasingly argue that there is a window of opportunity to secure a deal with Iran between the U.S. inauguration in January and the Iranian presidential elections in June. President Hassan Rouhani isn’t eligible to run again and will likely be replaced by a more conservative politician. Thus, the argument goes, Biden (or a reelected Trump) should move quickly to strike a deal with Iran while Rouhani is still in power.”……” In the end, Iran will probably have no choice but to negotiate with the U.S. president. Despite extraordinary steps to stabilize the stock market and cover the budget deficit, Iran’s economic situation is not sustainable. The regime can almost certainly not risk the return of widespread protests as it falters furtherIn this new deal, Israel gets something for nothing: relations with two more Arab states without so much as a settlement freeze. (Netanyahu did promise the UAE. that they wouldn’t formally annex any West Bank land, for the time being at least. But Netanyahu didn’t have Trump’s permission to annex such land anyway, and he certainly wouldn’t get permission from Biden, should Biden win the presidency).
In a piece he wrote for The Hill Ahmed Charai gave Jared Kushner the credit he deserves,” Kushner's years of patient and quiet behind-the-scenes negotiation paid off. Tossing out the tired scripts of past talks, he listened, he learned, he summarized to show his understanding, and he asked fresh questions”…..”This combination of opportunities and threats may well bring other nations to the table.”Ahmed Charai is an international counselor of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The editorial board of the New York Times was slightly less enthusiastic about the “Accords.”” The normalization of relations between Israel and two Arab states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is, on the face of it, a good and beneficial development. The Trump administration deserves credit for brokering it. It has long been an anomaly in Middle Eastern affairs that Arab nations felt compelled to publicly treat Israel as a pariah in their midst, while many of them — including the UAE. and Bahrain — pursued all sorts of economic and security links with Israel.”
Comparing the normalisation agreements with the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties The Times said, “By contrast, Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have never been in conflict, and the normalization of their ties carried few risks for any of them, while heaping considerable political benefits on Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu.
The agreements, moreover, made only a perfunctory nod to what “Middle East peace” has long referred to: peace between Palestinians and Israelis. The Palestinians, in fact, were not warned in advance that the UAE was hatching a deal with Israel and the United States, although the catalyst for it was Mr. Netanyahu’s threat to annex much of the West Bank “…”To forestall it, the UAE reportedly turned to the Trump administration with the idea of normalizing relations in exchange for Israel suspending its annexation plans. Bahrain, a tiny kingdom closely tied to Saudi Arabia, followed suit. Oman and Sudan could be next.”The signing ceremony in Washington on Tuesday demonstrated that the Palestinians have lost their veto power over Arab-Israeli relations. The time when the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” was the dominant mobilizing call of the Arab world appears to be over, a fact underscored by the Palestine Liberation Organization in a statement calling the signing ceremony “a black day in the history of the people of Palestine.”
Decades without any substantive progress, combined with growing frustration in many Arab capitals over the corrupt and demanding Palestinian leadership, had steadily pushed the Palestinians to the background in a region more concerned with Sunni-Shiite feuds, a drop in oil prices, conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and sharp reductions in the American military presence. Israel’s technological and military prowess, in the meantime, gained in allure.
In this process, the Abraham Accords were something of a reality check, a confirmation of a Middle East landscape that had radically changed since the Oslo Accords were signed at the White House in 1993.”
Just the same, The New York Times editorial board was loath to ignore the Palestinians’ predicament.” But a true Middle East peace deal will require an accommodation with the 4.75 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, a people who have been denied a homeland for more than seven decades. Their plight will continue to draw sympathy and censure from around the world, and their frustration will continue to fuel violence. The two-state solution remains the only viable alternative to either the current state of affairs, or a single country in which Jews are a minority.”
The intransigence of Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) has led the Palestinian people into their present impasse. Hamas and other dissident groups in Gaza are even less inclined to compromise.
Maybe when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “retires” a more pragmatic leader will emerge
Some Palestinian officials believe Emirates-backed Mohammad Dahlan, a former Palestinian Authority security minister was involved in the normalisation agreement, Dahlan has lived in the Emirates since he was expelled from the West Bank in 2011 following a bitter and bloody political dispute with the current Palestinian Authority leadership. Other observers believe Mohammad Dahlan is “waiting in the wings” hoping to replace Abu Mazen, but Palestinian pollsters say so far he lacks popular support.
Veteran Middle East affairs commentator Ehud Yaari proffered a different approach. He says it is more important to ensure rapid success of the UAE normalisation deal as a model for other potential partners, encouraging them to surround the Palestinians with an Arab-Israel “peace belt” that ultimately convinces Ramallah to seek a deal.Once again - Shana Tova and take care.Beni, 17th of September, 2020
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting op eds. You decide.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Extreme cultural revisionism is purposeful. The more outlandish, the more irrational, the more primal the more you stir peoples emotions the more you heighten instinct to backlash and reasoning and comity fly out the window, reasonable discourse shuts down and becomes impossible as divisiveness rules the day.
The BLM crowd know exactly what they are doing and we continue to allow it, all to our detriment.
Canceling Beethoven is the latest woke madness for the classical-music world
Think some things are so beloved and essential to Western civilization they can’t be canceled? Think again.
If there’s anything we should have learned from months of “mostly peaceful” Black Lives Matter street protests, statue toppling and online mobs seeking to silence anyone who dissents against leftist narratives about “racism,” it’s that no one, living or dead, is safe from the attentions of woke fascists. Even Ludwig van Beethoven.
Beethoven’s work is not only at the core of the standard repertory of classical music; some of his most popular works have also become part of popular culture, their melodies recognizable even to those who’ve never heard an orchestral concert.
For the last 200 years, Beethoven’s compositions have also been symbols of the struggle for freedom against tyranny. The “Ode to Joy” from the conclusion to his Ninth Symphony remains the definitive anthem of universal brotherhood. It is no coincidence that the opening notes of his Fifth Symphony — whose rhythmic pattern duplicates the Morse Code notation for the letter “V” as in “V for Victory” — were used by the BBC for broadcasts to occupied Europe during the Second World War.
But to woke critics, Beethoven’s music has taken on a new, darker meaning. To musicologist Nate Sloan and songwriter Charlie Harding, stars of the “Switched on Pop” podcast produced in association with the New York Philharmonic, the Fifth Symphony is a stand-in for everything they don’t like about classical music and Western culture. As far as they’re concerned, it’s time to cancel Ludwig.
On Vox.com, the pair blame Beethoven’s music for what they consider to be a stuffy elitist classical culture that bolsters the rule of white males and suppresses the voices of women, blacks and the LGBTQ community.
Beethoven’s music was so profound and different that it did begin the trend of adopting rules of behavior at concerts, like being quiet during performances and holding applause until the conclusion. But the idea that such music is the “soundtrack” for “white privilege” and oppression is imposing a contemporary woke narrative on Beethoven that has nothing to do with his music or the way it’s performed.
This isn’t the first such attack on Beethoven. In the 1980s, a musicologist named Susan McClary caused a stir with a bizarre claim that analogized the Ninth Symphony to the “rage” of an impotent rapist. But while serious thinkers dismissed McClary, that kind of delusional leftist thinking has gone mainstream in 2020.
The BLM protests have inspired other assaults on the music world, such as New York Times music critic Anthony Tommasini’s demand for racial quotas in orchestral hiring that would increase the number of black performers but also limit opportunities for Asians, who are disproportionately overrepresented among modern musicians. Elsewhere, the late opera star Richard Tucker’s son David was pushed out of a family foundation that aided young singers, simply because he criticized BLM rioters and praised President Trump.
There’s something to be said for loosening up some of the informal rules of attending a classical concert. But Sloan and Harding write as if they haven’t been to a concert in 40 years: Modern concertgoers come in all sorts of attire and, if anything, many need to be instructed to turn off their phones and show more respect for fellow audience members and performers alike by shutting up.
They also haven’t noticed that orchestras and opera companies have spent the last generation falling over themselves trying to promote music written by black, Hispanic and female composers.
Some of this new music is good; a lot isn’t. But if audiences still prefer Beethoven it’s not because they’re embracing a symbol of white supremacy. They want more Beethoven and the other great white European composers, like Brahms and Mahler, who followed in his footsteps because they love it.
Indeed, without these white male immortals, orchestras like the NY Philharmonic, which were already struggling before the COVID shutdowns, would have even more trouble filling seats.
The attempt to cancel Beethoven ought to be a wake-up call for the music world and even those who aren’t classical fans: The war on Western civilization will leave nothing sacred untouched. If Beethoven can be canceled, nothing is safe.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org. Twitter: @jonathans_tobin
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Distortion is the name of the Radical Left's Game:
Bill Barr’s Prosecutorial Warning
The left distorts his important speech on political accountability.
By The Editorial Board
Mr. Barr delivered a thoughtful address on how a democracy should handle the profound power of prosecution. Yet for the Washington Post, it was a “breathtaking broadside” against the “professional attorneys” in the Department of Justice. Former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted that Mr. Barr is “dangerous” and “increasingly absurd,” and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal called him a “disgrace.”
It’s worth setting straight what Mr. Barr actually said—and its vital significance for our polarized society. First Mr. Barr conveyed the awesome power of prosecutors. “Once the criminal process starts rolling,” he explained in remarks that are on the Justice website, “it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course.” He quoted Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, an erstwhile liberal hero, who wrote that prosecutors “strike at citizens not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself
Mr. Barr delivered a thoughtful address on how a democracy should handle the profound power of prosecution. Yet for the Washington Post, it was a “breathtaking broadside” against the “professional attorneys” in the Department of Justice. Former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted that Mr. Barr is “dangerous” and “increasingly absurd,” and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal called him a “disgrace.”
It’s worth setting straight what Mr. Barr actually said—and its vital significance for our polarized society. First Mr. Barr conveyed the awesome power of prosecutors. “Once the criminal process starts rolling,” he explained in remarks that are on the Justice website, “it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course.” He quoted Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, an erstwhile liberal hero, who wrote that prosecutors “strike at citizens not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself
In a society that rests on the consent of the governed, such power should not be wielded without democratic accountability. That’s why the Constitution provides that top law-enforcement officers—U.S. Attorneys, senior officials in the Justice Department and ultimately the Attorney General—be appointed by the elected President and confirmed by the Senate. They can also be brought before Congress for questioning, censured or even impeached.
This seems like a straightforward point, but the idea of political accountability for prosecutors is now controversial. Perhaps it’s because of the leftward turn of the legal establishment, or the rise of the “Resistance lawyer” industry during the Trump Administration, or the attachment to the idea of “expert” knowledge superseding political deliberation. Whatever the reason, many progressives seem now to believe that career prosecutors ought to have free rein to pursue cases without supervision. In this view, the Attorney General and other Senate-confirmed officials should be figureheads atop an autonomous lawyerly civil service.
That’s a reversal of the Constitution’s design. It’s also based on a false premise. As Mr. Barr explained, career prosecutors should be trusted and supported, but that does not mean their decisions are free of personal or political motives. Often they take aim at targets to boost their careers. And “like any person, a prosecutor can become overly invested in a particular goal.” Far from an attack on career prosecutors, Mr. Barr recognizes human nature.
He also noted the dangerous trend of prosecutors bringing cases based on creative interpretations of statutes to punish non-criminal behavior. The Supreme Court agrees with him on this point, having overturned several convictions in recent years, such as one against a fisherman accused of violating the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-shredding law because he tossed a small grouper back in the water (Yates v. U.S.).
Mr. Barr admits it is “counter-intuitive” to recognize that politics plays a role in the fair administration of justice. “But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny,” he said.
Accountability also means an AG has to take the political heat for decisions, as Mr. Barr has. For an example of the alternative, recall James Comey’s willful decision to absolve publicly Hillary Clinton in the email case in 2016. Both AG Loretta Lynch and deputy Sally Yates abdicated their duty to supervise the FBI and take responsibility for the prosecutorial decision. No end of political trouble ensued.
In a better era, Mr. Barr’s speech would have been praised by progressive civil libertarians. It should be now too.
+++
And:
Don't forget selective investigation is also the Radical Left's name of the game and tactic. Impeach Trump but protect Hunter.
From Russia (to Biden) With Love
Senate Democrats try to smear colleagues for investigating Hunter and Ukraine.
When Democrats look at Russia, they don’t see a geopolitical threat. They see the political gift that keeps giving. They now hope it produces for Joe Biden.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Oregon’s Ron Wyden on Wednesday accused a GOP colleague of essentially working as a Kremlin operative. They called Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson’s work a “disgrace,” claimed his committee was funneling “Russian disinformation,” and introduced a resolution demanding he cease. The only thing missing from this spectacle was the supporting cast: James Comey, John Brennan and Peter Strzok.
The catalyst for these surreal claims: Mr. Johnson will soon release the findings of his investigation into the Biden family’s dealings with Ukraine. It’s a probe for which Democrats can thank Rep. Adam Schiff. Since 2016, the left and their press cheerleaders have insisted there is no greater risk to this nation than foreign interference in our elections. Duly, Mr. Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley looked into reports that Democrats worked in the last election with Ukrainians on opposition research against the Trump campaign.
That probe naturally expanded late last year, when Democrats centered their Trump impeachment charges on Ukraine. This column warned at the time that this strategy posed risks to Mr. Biden, since Ukraine shone a klieg light on his own “glaring conflicts of interest during his vice presidency vis-à-vis his son Hunter’s business interests.”
The nation is about to be vividly reminded of Burisma, the young Mr. Biden’s Ukrainian employer. And Messrs. Johnson and Grassley have every right to provide America the facts about Mr. Biden’s official acts in 2014-15, no matter that he is today the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Some might even call it a duty. Mr. Biden is defining this election as a referendum on Mr. Trump’s judgment—and fair enough. But Americans also need to evaluate Mr. Biden’s judgment—to know whether he was too conflicted or too blind to deal with a son cashing in on the Biden name.
Which is why Democrats are terrified, and again playing the cracked and moldy Russia card. The effort to smear and delegitimize Mr. Johnson ramped up in summer, when Democrats in the Gang of Eight congressional intelligence leaders—Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Schiff and Sen. Mark Warner—sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation expressing concern that Congress had become “the target of a concerted foreign interference campaign.” Democrats claimed to have classified information (immediately leaked to the press) showing that Mr. Johnson’s Ukraine investigation had become a vehicle for “laundering” Russian claims that would damage Mr. Biden.
Specifically, they said Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grassley were receiving information from two Ukrainians compromised by the Kremlin. This is a fabrication, as Messrs. Johnson and Grassley have stated publicly, repeatedly and definitively that they’ve never received information from either of the men in question. Mr. Johnson said his probe is focused on “documents and officials from U.S. government agencies,” as well as a “U.S. Democrat-linked lobbying firm” that had ties to Burisma.
It turned out Democrats and the media were relying on the claims of the two Ukrainians themselves that they sent info to Republicans. Put another way, Mr. Schumer and the Washington Post were using two men they accuse of spreading Russian disinformation to spread disinformation about the GOP. Vladimir Putin couldn’t ask for better helpmates.
Even this muckraking hasn’t deterred Mr. Johnson. The Wisconsin Republican seems among the few in Washington who understand that time may be running out for the GOP to get the truth to the American people—about Mr. Biden’s past dealings, about the FBI’s rogue operation in 2016, about actual sources of foreign influence. Any Republican who is not spending every available minute over the next 46 days declassifying information or holding depositions or hearings is letting down his constituents.
The Johnson doggedness is why Democrats this week escalated with a resolution that likely violated the Senate rule on civility. In rising to object, Mr. Johnson asked “the American people to take a look at what has been happening here. The false allegations, the basic playbook Democrats engage in time and time again.”
Exactly. The unearned mileage Democrats continue to get out of the false “Russia collusion” claim is mind-boggling. They used it to gin up an investigation into their political opponents. They used it to try to discredit the results of an election. They used it to keep a three-year cloud over a presidency. They used it to give cover to the weakest impeachment proceeding in history.
Now, they are using it to muddy up straightforward questions about their own nominee for president. Mr. Putin poses real security threats to this country. Unfortunately, Democrats are turning the Russian danger into a joke.
Finally:
When Noonan boards the Trump Train and embraces his message, take heed!
Get Ready for an Election Crisis
Between bitter division and massive mail-in balloting, a normal vote would be a miracle.
Let’s talk about the terrible time America might be in for in the days and weeks, maybe months, after the election.
It starts with what is known: On election night we probably won’t know who won the presidency. The event we’ve been hoping would resolve things instead may leave them more mysterious.
As in the past we will know fairly quickly what happened in the voting booths. But because of the pandemic an unprecedented number of Americans are expected to vote by mail. In 2016 about 25% of voters voted by mail. This year it may be more than twice that. Meaning more than half of all ballots.
It may be days or weeks before we know the mail-in results. Different states have different laws: Some count or certify mail-ins pretty much as they receive them and can report results with dispatch. Some begin to count mail-ins on Election Day. Few or none have ever been engulfed as they will this year.
Another wrinkle. Republicans seem to prefer voting in person, and Democrats by mail. NBC News has reported that 54% of those who lean Republican plan to vote in person on Election Day, while 71% of Democrats plan to vote by mail or early. This newspaper reports that in North Carolina, Democratic voters requested 53% of absentee ballots, Republicans only 15%.Because of this it’s possible that on election night there could be what looks like a solid margin in favor of President Trump, especially in the states that will decide the election. Maybe it won’t be a “red mirage,” as it’s been called; maybe it will signal a real and coming red wave. Or maybe a big blue one will swell. Again, especially if the outcome is close, we likely won’t know for days or weeks.
The waiting will require patience and trust. That’s not, as we know, the prevailing political mood. We are riven and polarized. “It is my greatest concern,” Joe Biden has said. “This president is going to try to steal this election.” Mr. Trump: “They’re trying to steal the election from the Republicans.”
Suppose, to take one scenario, the president declares himself the victor before the victor is known: “What a landslide, this is fantastic, the polls and pundits were wrong!” Maybe it will be his supporters or family members who declare victory.
And what if in the following days and weeks the count changes? What if on day five, or 10, or 30, Mr. Biden looks like the winner?
That’s the general area when things could go very wrong. “Postelection through to the inauguration, we have a real danger zone,” says Larry Sabato, the great veteran director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
There will be charges and countercharges, rumors, legal challenges. There will be stories—“My cousin saw with her own eyes bags of votes being thrown in the Ohio River.” Most dangerously there will be conspiracy theories, fed by a frenzied internet.
Let’s make the picture darker, to deepen the point. What many people will fear in such an atmosphere is the possibility of violence. We’ve just been through a round of street violence this summer. It is not beyond imagining that in a tense national environment we would see it again. Maybe it will be Black Lives Matter and antifa versus white nationalists and QAnon. Maybe it will include honestly enraged citizens who believe their side was wronged.
The extreme edges of both parties are punching above their weight against their respective centers right now. They will be a source of pressure for their candidates not to concede, no matter what the results.
All this would only further undermine America’s morale, giving us all the impression of profound national deterioration. It would subvert the democratic process and tarnish our reputation in the world.
The Electoral College meets Dec. 14. There, Mr. Sabato notes, it’s possible there could be a 269-269 tie. There is also the issue of so-called faithless electors, who could deny the winning candidate a majority. In either case, the election would be thrown to the House, where people may be surprised by the rules. They assume that if the Democrats have a majority, as is expected, the House would vote Democratic. But the House would vote not by individual member but by state delegation. There, in the current Congress, the Republicans have an edge.
What a crisis—including a constitutional crisis—may be coming down the pike.
Maybe we should think about ideas that might forestall trouble or make things better.
We should laud and encourage those states that are seeing the potential challenge and concentrating on timely vote counting and voter integrity. We should encourage states to take actions that will accommodate the changed voting reality, and celebrate those that are on the case. Boosting trust in the process this year is a patriotic act.
It may be late with 40-some days to go, but if you’re not in the U.S. military or away from home, and not sick or especially vulnerable to illness, and if you haven’t already voted early, sent in your ballot or requested a ballot, you should try hard to vote in person. This will help election-night numbers align more closely with ultimate reality, bolster the system, and help avoid the mischief of political operators. Mask up, glove up, maintain your distance, and show up. “It’s inconvenient.” Democracy is inconvenient. Do your part.
Here a word on the civic, even ancestral nature of voting in person. I am one of those who takes pleasure in it. When my son was a child I’d take him with me. We’d get in line, close the big curtain, as it was then, and I’d move the toggles and tell him what I was doing, what democracy is, how I am one vote of many. I mentioned this to Mr. Sabato, who laughed and said his parents used to take him too: “It was like the Roman Forum. You saw people you knew; you enjoyed it.” All the neighbors were there, launched together on this wonderful project.
He thought they should make it clear, before the results are in, “that we have to do this in the American way, we have to accept outcomes whether we like them or not, otherwise we will dissolve.” They could ask citizens to join them in a pledge of nonviolence. “They should say sometimes demonstrations are useful, sometimes justified, but no violence under any conditions.” He suggested leaders from a wide range of fields—Nobel Prize winners, artists, people of left and right.
I nominate Tucker Carlson and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
We don’t have long until Election Day. We should be thinking about all this now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment