Author: davidajepson

by

Losing the Transition

Comparing Napoleon the First and Louis Bonaparte Marx wrote, “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historic facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.” Donald Trump, for whom uniquely an ad hominem attack is virtually always justified, manages to combine both simultaneously.

Having lost the credibility of a substantial proportion of the population and consequently the election he is now set on losing the transition. It is clear public opinion, including amongst Republican supporters, has been moving away from President Trump as his increasingly strident but increasingly discredited rhetoric about election fraud has continued.

His latest, and, to date, most egregious actions inciting a rally of his supporters to “walk to the Congress” and “fight” produced an event which combined farce and tragedy in equal parts. Whilst his actions may not meet a statutory definition of sedition they certainly pass the common sense and everyday meaning of the word – “the use of words or actions that are intended to encourage people to oppose a government” (OED).

However, this call to insurrection betrayed all the hallmarks of the Trump presidency. Born out of wishful thinking with no consideration of the realities of the situation. A complete absence of concern for the consequences on his colleagues, the legislature, the government of the United States and its standing in the world. But most cynically of all, the consequences for his supporters.

The invasion of the building did not approach the political sophistication of a student sit-in. Shockingly, the security which faced the invaders appears to have been of a similar vintage. Sheer weight of numbers more than sufficient to secure entry.

The ubiquitous still and moving images of the event create an unforgettable and rich evidential source for future prosecutions. One has to think the political commitment to “no masks” by the organisers might not have been as thoroughly thought through as it could have been.

What came across was a front line of individuals, mainly men in outlandish costumes with racist and anti-semitic slogans printed on their t-shirts and bodies. These, on the ground “leaders”, were followed by rag tag flock of “sheep” consisting of what looked like a lot of middle-aged and elderly moms and pops. These, cannon fodder were closely “supported”, from three miles away, by the Trump family General Staff sitting in the White House bravely engaged in watching the battle on tv.

Tragically, the aggressive front line reinforced by the unthinking weight of support from the rear led to events like the crushing of riot police in doors and the totally unanticipated “success” of accessing the House and the Senate. Of course it is one thing to threaten and even to succeed in occupying the concourse of a university building. It is another altogether to prevent the legislative arm of government doing its constitutional duty of counting the votes in a presidential election.

In form this was an insurrectionist act. However, from the start it lacked credible content. Having successfully breached the security of the building they had no idea what to do next other than steal a lectern and leave adolescent notes on the desk of the leader of the House of Representatives.

The events of 6 January are truly shocking, and become more so as further video evidence emerges showing the aggressive violence of some of the insurgents. Whether it was incompetence, conspiracy, or mature restraint the death toll could have been much greater if the defenders had committed early to the use of deadly force.

The question of how different it might have been if this had been a Black Lives Matter invasion has been raised by many. Whatever may have happened in those circumstances it is worth remembering what did happen to a Vietnam War protest in 1970 at Kent State University where 4 students were shot dead and nine others wounded by the National Guard. The stain of the actions of the insurgents may be indelible but it could have been a great deal bloodier.

Beyond this however one has got to ask the question; five lives lost, for what?

Neither General Trump, nor his misguided militia had any sensible, much less credible, plan of action. This was not a coup it was a mindless stamping of feet. Like so much of his thinking his notion of a coup rests on the firm theoretical foundations of what he sees on tv. He wants to remain President so he thinks all he has to do is issue an instruction. “Make it so Number One.” Republican Senators, those responsible for the election count, his Vice President and his sadly misguided supporters all told to “Make it so”.

As President he had the power to shape much of the external world to fit his internal picture, and where he could not, eg. when Covid-19 ignored presidential edicts, he frightened those around him into agreeing it looked the way he said it did. As his power and influence ebbs away the pressure of reality is starting to push in upon him, and it hurts.

There is no doubt that he will continue to lash out. His irresponsible thrashing may well cause significant damage and may even, unforgivably, cause further deaths. He will not achieve his goal however, indeed, every outrage, every irrational outburst is reducing his credibility and isolating him.

He is of course the most powerful man on earth until noon on 20 January. I for one will not breathe easy until that moment comes. I draw some comfort from the fact some of his most loyal supporters show signs of growing up. It is, however, long past time they started to become the adults in the room.

President Trump lost the election and he is now losing the transition. His erstwhile loyal followers need to understand this and move from verbal condemnation to action. In truth they bear a heavy responsibility for what has happened. But Trump is sui generis and nothing should detract from the current priority of preventing him doing further damage to the United States and the world and seeing him out of office.

It is time to bring this tragic farce to an end.

by

Pompeo Says Russia Was Behind Cyberattack on U.S. – The New York Times

 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is the first member of the Trump administration to publicly link the Kremlin to the hacking of dozens of government and private systems.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the White House last week.

In an interview on the Mark Levin Show, Mr. Pompeo called the attack a “very significant effort.”

Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesBy Steve KennyDec. 19, 2020Updated 8:12 a.m. ET

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday it was clear that Russia was behind the widespread hacking of government systems that officials this week called “a grave risk” to the United States.

Mr. Pompeo is the first member of the Trump administration to publicly link the Kremlin to the cyberattack, which used a variety of sophisticated tools to infiltrate dozens of government and private systems, including nuclear laboratories, the Pentagon, and the Treasury and Commerce Departments.

 

Northern Comment – Is it surprising Russia would only attack the American IT software infrastructure via its supply chain and none of its allies, particularly the UK? Perhaps we do not have the same kind of route into our system?

by

No Deal is a Bad Deal

Is the full awfulness of a no-deal Brexit beginning to dawn on the Tory leadership and some of the hard line Brexiteers?

Yesterday Michale Gove “negotiated” the removal of the offending clauses in the Internal Market Bill. These clauses were a spectacular own goal, poisoning the waters of the negotiations with Europe and uniting a broad swathe of Conservative MP’s and Peers against the Government. You just cannot give Boris that amount of space in a tight negotiating box.

Apparently we also negotiated to allow officials from the EU to be permanently based in Northern Ireland. Was that a “concession” from the EU for the above!?

There were even noises coming out of the European Reform Group, according to the Telegraph as reported on the World at One yesterday, that they were “minded to accept” principles around the level playing field point if that secured a wider deal. Elevating concern about sovereignty over our fishing rights above that of the whole of the rest of our trade with Europe.

Earlier attempts to divide and rule as the UK tried to secure meetings with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron failed and it was confirmed there is one negotiation team on the EU’s side.

It has always been unclear how a compromise could be arrived at. Of the three outstanding issues by far the most straightforward one should be fisheries. Whilst there is a lot of huffing and puffing about defending the UK’s control of its waters a negotiated settlement is a matter of practicalities. Scale of quotas, transition periods, areas of activity, market access, all provide a mix of issues which a pragmatic deal can be done on.

However, in relation to the other two key issues, guarantees of a level playing field and enforcement any possible progress is hampered, if not hobbled, by the notion of absolute sovereignty which, like pregnancy, is either there or not, which the hardline Brexiteers have created. It is very difficult to negotiate starting from this notion of sovereignty. It becomes a zero sum game which one side wins only if the other loses. This is the corner the Brexiteer’s have negotiated themselves into and it is difficult to see how it can be escaped from.

It may be in the logic of diplomacy but it is emblematic our Prime Minister is flying to Brussels to try to restart negotiations, not Ursula Von Der Leyen flying to London.

The recent report by the Independent Office for Budget Responsibility showing that a no deal Brexit would cost the UK 2% of its GDP, or £40bn, has probably focused minds as we struggle with Covid-19 and a weak Global economy.

There is only one certainty about what will happen on 31 December. There will be one of the most aggressive and nasty blame shifting games we have ever seen. It will either be between the EU and the British Government or between the British Government and the hard line Brexiteers in the Tory Party. Lets hope it is the latter because that will mean some element of Absolute British Sovereignty has been traded for a trade deal with our biggest and most important partner.

by

Opinion | Why Did Racial Progress Stall in America? – The New York Times

Why Did Racial Progress Stall in America?The answer may show us the path out of our fractured and polarized present.By Shaylyn Romney Garrett and Robert D. Putnam

Robert D. Putnam is a political scientist. Shaylyn Romney Garrett is a writer. Dec. 4, 2020Students registering to vote, Chatham County Courthouse in Savannah, Ga., 1963.Credit…Fred Baldwin

In the popular narrative of American history, Black Americans made essentially no measurable progress toward equality with white Americans until the lightning-bolt changes of the civil rights revolution. If that narrative were charted along the course of the 20th century, it would be a flat line for decades, followed by a sharp, dramatic upturn toward equality beginning in the 1960s: the shape of a hockey stick.

In many ways, this hockey stick image of racial inequality is accurate. Until the banning of de jure segregation and discrimination, very little progress was made in many domains: representation in politics and mainstream media, job quality and job security, access to professional schools and careers or toward residential integration.

However, on a number of other measures, the shape of the trend is surprisingly different. In our book, “The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again,” we examine century-long data, tracking outcomes by race in health, education, income, wealth and voting. What we found surprised us.In terms of material well-being, Black Americans were moving toward parity with white Americans well before the victories of the civil rights era. What’s more, after the passage of civil rights legislation, those trends toward racial parity slowed, stopped and even reversed. Understanding how and why not only reveals why America is so fractured today, but illuminates the path forward, toward a more perfect union.

 

Northern Comment – This is a fascinating article about the trajectory of black rights and racist resistance over the past 100 years. As a taster it is good enough to have persuaded me to order the book even though it has 440 pages.