Main page    Jun. 13

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
No headline theme today. There are too many items where it's not appropriate. Plus, given that today's posting checks in around 12,000 words, there also wasn't time. It will be back next week!

Israel Bombs Iran

As most readers will know by now, Israel launched a massive missile attack on Iran yesterday. The ostensible target was Iran's nuclear program, which is reportedly close to being able to produce a working nuclear device. In the attack, Gen. Hossein Salami and Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, two high-ranking Iranian officers, were killed, along with two nuclear scientists.

Every time one of these two nations becomes aggressive with the other, there is much talk that it could develop into some sort of broader, regional war that draws in other nations on both sides. If so, the United States would presumably be one of those nations, since support for Israel is a bedrock of American foreign policy. This never actually seems to happen, as there are a lot of reasons that Iran and Israel don't want to end up fighting a full-fledged war. That said, we are most certainly not experts here, and so have no idea if there's a reason to think this time might be different. Similarly, other than knowing that he often loves a good distraction from domestic problems, we don't have any notion as to whether there is some specific reason that Benjamin Netanyahu chose now to attack.

What we are saying here, in so many words, is that if you want discussion of those kinds of issues, we suggest reading an outlet where people know what they are talking about. Foreign Policy is very good in this area, though you have to pay for a subscription. Alternatively, reading both Haaretz and Al Jazeera usually gives a pretty well-rounded picture. Although those outlets are based in Israel and Qatar, respectively, they are independent, and not mouthpieces for any political actor.

The one thing we CAN comment on is the American politics angle. And since we have a lot of other material to write for this posting, we're going to be pretty blunt. Donald Trump, who tore up the nuclear deal that Barack Obama reached with Iran, and then (characteristically) claimed that coming up with a superior agreement would be as easy as pie, has failed miserably. Members of his team, including some negotiators who actually know what they are doing (meaning they presumably did NOT read The Art of the Deal) have been trying to work something out with the Iranian government. Furthermore, for several days, it's been clear that Israel was about to do this, and Trump tried hard to talk Netanyahu out of it, and to let diplomacy take its course. Netanyahu ignored him, obviously.

One cannot help but notice that the same basic pattern played out with the war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump promised that he would bring peace to that part of the world; in fact, he said he'd do so on the first day of his second term in office. That did not happen, obviously, and since then he's flopped around like a beached whale, sometimes working with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, sometimes working against him. The Donald presented himself as the Putin whisperer, based on his belief that he has some sort of special relationship with the Russian president. That has proven to be not the case; as with Trump's relationship with Netanyahu, the "friendship" is only in effect when Putin needs it to be.

During Trump's first term, there were no major foreign policy crises. Maybe that is because he did something right. Or maybe it's because he's erratic, and everyone was worried he might go off half-cocked. Or maybe he just got lucky. Again, not our area, so we really don't know.

It's certainly possible that Trump v2.0 could end in the same way, with no major setbacks, and with a little progress here and there (the Abraham Accords the first time around; this time, there's reportedly positive momentum in Syria). But it's also possible that Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Iran, Israel-Palestine or some other situation will explode into something very, very bad. If so, then that is going to be on Trump, even when he inevitably tries to point the finger at Joe Biden, Barack Obama, etc. In particular, if Iran becomes a nuclear power in the next 3 years, then that's entirely on the current president's plate, given the choices he's made. So much so that, just as American soldiers used to write "Kilroy was here" on U.S. bombs, Iranian soldiers should write "Trump was here" on any Iranian nuclear bombs. (Z)

Military Theater, Part I: California

We have surely used the word "fascist" and its variants more times since January 20 of this year than in all of the 20 years prior to that. We do not like doing this, but you know what they say about what it means when something walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

One thing that is absolutely critical to fascists (and, in fact, to authoritarians of all stripes) is the military. First, because glorifying the military (and, along with that, the purifying power of violence) is a core element of fascist thinking.

Second, because the leader draws "strength" (or, at least, the illusion of strength) through association with the troops he commands (we use "he" here because we cannot think of any woman leader in the last two centuries who might properly be called an authoritarian, although Aung San Suu Kyi certainly gave it the old college try). Anyhow, there is a reason that authoritarian leaders—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadafi, Idi Amin, Francisco Franco, the Kim family of North Korea, etc.—generally wear some sort of military (or pseudo-military) costume.

Third, because when push comes to shove, it will be the military (or, sometimes, paramilitary) forces that impose the leader's will.

It is true that Donald Trump is not running around in a military uniform—at least, not yet. But, in other ways, he's getting uncomfortably close to creating the kind of relationship with the military that fascists and other authoritarians try to create. And, as readers can undoubtedly tell from the headlines, we are going to have three items in a row, all of them involving news from this week, that discuss that general theme. And this one's going to be extra long, so much so that we're going to divide it into sections (again). So, buckle up.

A Short History Lesson

Let us talk a little bit about the Watts Riots of 1965, a subject that has become uncomfortably salient in the last week or so. Some readers will probably know that incident began with a traffic stop, as a couple of California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers pulled over a car with three Black men in it and accused the driver of being drunk. The broader context in which this happened included the burgeoning Vietnam War (and associated protests), the emergence of Black Power thinking and, in California, a really ugly debate over Proposition 14, by which white California homeowners hoped to re-assert their right to discriminate in home sales, despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said they couldn't do that anymore.

All of these things served to prime the pump for a confrontation (it did not help that the traffic stop happened on August 11, a hot summer day—urban unrest almost always takes place when the temperature is not only metaphorically high, but also literally high). Anyhow, during the traffic stop, things were initially calm. However, a crowd of Black onlookers began to gather around the pulled-over car. That led the CHP officers to call for backup. Tempers flared, words were exchanged, someone threw a punch, the violence quickly spread, and the Watts Riots were underway. They lasted for about 5 days.

Readers will note that we did not say WHO threw that first punch. And most folks can probably intuit why we did not include that information: It's unknown. All of the Black witnesses on the scene said that the CHP turned to violence first. All of the CHP officers on the scene said that Black people in the crowd turned to violence first. There's no visual evidence, and no way to determine who is telling the truth (and, indeed, both sides could be telling the truth if punches were thrown about the same time).

Documenting the past is like that; there are always contradictions in the accounts of witnesses, often very big ones. The two kinds of events where this problem is worst are almost certainly riots and battles. That is because both of those things tend to be highly decentralized, with a lot of different stuff going on all at once, which means a lot of chaos, and with people acting very much based on emotion. The biggest unknown about the Watts Riots is "Who threw the first punch?" but there are all kinds of other questions that have no clear answer. For example, did police officers participate in looting? Exactly how many people were killed due to the rioting? Why were some stores burned down, and others left untouched? Was the driver pulled over by the CHP actually drunk?

With nearly 60 years gone by, we will never know the answers to these questions or many, many others. As with the first punch example, the witnesses who might provide answers can have agendas that renders their testimony suspect. More common, however, is that witnesses disappear into the ether, and nobody bothers to get their account on the record. If for example, a store is burned down, the motivations of those involved are probably only going to be documented if there happens to be a reporter/historian on the scene asking questions, or if it becomes a criminal/civil matter and the perpetrators end up in court. During a riot (or a battle), with so many different acts going on in so many different places at so many different times, only a small number of incidents actually get put under any sort of microscope. For the rest, the details are quickly lost to the mists of time.

What Really Happened?

We offer that brief account of the Watts Riots to illustrate that these sorts of things are REALLY hard to get a handle on, even with the benefit of time and of hindsight. They are even harder to get a handle on while they are unfolding. This message was sent to us by reader P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, and while it was meant as a Saturday question, we're going to address it in this item:

You wrote that confrontations at the Los Angeles protests were "largely peaceful" and "relatively few." Yet the local TV media reported at least six cars burned, many windows broken, numerous businesses looted (including Apple and Adidas stores, a pharmacy, and a marijuana dispensary), several police injured, and nearly 400 arrests made, including one for attempted murder when Molotov cocktails were thrown and commercial grade fireworks fired at police. Were there two groups present, one of peaceful protesters and another of criminal elements taking advantage of confusion and chaos? When does a largely peaceful protest become a riot, and when does a riot become an insurrection justifying the use of troops, as on January 6, 2021?

We are going to answer this in three parts. First up, we want to point out that, as with the punch that started the Watts Riots, there are a lot of "unknowns" right now, such that there is no person—not us, not Donald Trump, not L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, not LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell—who could definitively answer P.Y.'s questions right now. We're going to give two quick examples of incidents from the past couple of days where there are many questions, but few clear answers:

The time may come where we get clarity on exactly what happened in each of these two situations. But it might not. The point here is to illustrate that there is much that is unknown or unclear, which means there is much potential right now for spin, exaggeration and outright lies.

Motivations

Now, let's talk a little bit about motivations. Much of this will be obvious, but we want to get it down, because it's important to the overall assessment we're trying to lay out here. We are going to speak briefly about three key players here:
  1. The Right: The agenda of Donald Trump, his underlings, his supporters in the media, and his base is basically clear. At very least, he wants to reiterate that the teeming brown hordes are ruining this country, and that dad gum it, he's gonna do something about that, just like he promised. Further, as we have already written this week, it certainly looks like he's trying to grease the skids for more aggressive use of the National Guard and/or the regular armed forces to impose his will. Both of these goals are served by making the immigrants look as guilty as possible and making the protests look as horrible and violent as possible.

  2. The Left: The agenda of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), his underlings, his allies, his supporters in the media, and the Democratic base is equally clear. They want to downplay the situation as much as possible, within reason, which implicitly makes the argument that Trump is a crazypants dictator who is grossly overstepping his authority. Newsom (who wants to be president), Padilla (who may himself run for governor one of these days) and a few others are also interested in boosting their profiles/brand.

  3. The Media: We have written this before, and we will write it again, but it's important to reiterate this here and now. For all the talk of liberal/conservative bias in the media, a considerably more profound bias is towards coverage that is shocking, sensational, titillating, etc. This is particularly true of television media, and it's even more true of social media (if we include those platforms in this category). If the choice is between footage of a bunch of people peacefully protesting, or a bunch of people lighting a car on fire, everyone knows which will win out, 99 times out of 100. And while some outlets (and maybe one or two social media platforms) at least TRY to make sure their material is legit, not all of them do.

    And note that social media is particularly pernicious here. The algorithms on every site favor the things that people click on. And the things that people click on are: (1) the stuff that is really sensational; (2) the stuff that affirms their political point of view; and (3) the stuff that fits in both categories.

We'll finish this section with one observation, and that is that two-thirds of the key players are, for different reasons, served by making things in Los Angeles look very bad. So, the deck is stacked, as it were.

The First Draft

Finally, to try to answer the question from P.Y. as much as is possible (under current circumstances), we'll turn to the tools of the historian, used whenever the attempt to make sense of an event is being made (these same tools, by and large, are used in courtrooms, and in other contexts, as well). Remember, the news is the first draft of history.

  1. Patterns of Behavior: If you go on trial for murder, and you've already been convicted of two other murders in the past, the odds are pretty good you're going to get popped for the third. To take another example, if you're in a car wreck that is not your fault, and then a second one a month later that is not your fault, and then a third one a month later that is not your fault, the insurance company is going to take a long look at your policy, and is going to wonder if there's not something you're doing wrong.

    We say this as prelude to the observation that a lot of what the Trump administration is doing right now tends to be par for the course for them. For example, Team Trump has now arrested, or nearly arrested, a judge, a U.S. Representative, a mayor and now a U.S. Senator. At a certain point, it ceases to be bad luck, or a misunderstanding, or "he said, she said." It's a pattern of behavior.

  2. Fantastic Tales...: Another pattern that Trump has shown, over and over and over, (as have many of his acolytes), is a willingness to embrace conspiratorial thinking as if it were fact. He is doing that, right now, with the riots, having claimed numerous times now that the protesters are, in fact, paid crisis actors. This is a claim he, and many other right-wingers, have made many times before. And they've offered zero proof, either in the past, or in the current situation. At a certain point, if the boy inaccurately or dishonestly cries wolf too many times, you have to conclude he's a liar.

  3. ...And Outright Lies: Trump has not limited himself to conspiratorial thinking (which he, at least, might believe is true). He's also issued forth with things he most certainly knows to be lies. For example, and we noted this previously, he lied about when the National Guard was deployed, and gave them credit they did not deserve for quelling protests. He also lied in claiming that LAPD Chief McDonnell advised that the Guard be deployed. In fact, McDonnell told reporters that the protests were "nowhere near" that level.

    What percentage of the administration's narrative has to be false, or conspiratorial, before one dismisses the whole thing?

  4. Words ≠ Actions: Another key aspect of Trump's story—and, indeed, his political program—is that he's going to get rid of the "bad" immigrants, by which he means the brown ones the drug dealers, the gangsters, the criminals, etc.

    Consider this message we received from reader J.W. in Los Angeles:
    I work across the street from the federal building where ICE was detaining people on Friday, June 6. That building processes applications of immigrants trying to become U.S. Citizens. The court building around the corner is where their cases are heard. These are all people who were doing the right, lawful thing. It is unfathomable, outrageous, and disgusting that ICE would target these locations and the people who were attempting to follow the law and work through a process that is expensive and time consuming to remain in the U.S. legally and to become citizens. The situation in Los Angeles was engineered specifically to target people at a particularly vulnerable location. It did not have to happen and should not have happened.
    Similarly, readers who have been following this story closely have undoubtedly heard the name "Home Depot" mentioned a few times. For those who do not know, most Home Depots attract a fairly sizable number of undocumented day laborers, who are willing to do hard and necessary work. Not only do they afford business owners (and others) a lot of flexibility, but they are paid in cash, and do not come with such burdens as the need to pay for workers' compensation insurance. These folks are overwhelmingly law abiding, and play a critical role in keeping the economy humming. They are also a favorite target of ICE these days.

    What we are saying, in so many words, is that it could not be clearer that Trump has no real idea how to lay hands on the least desirable immigrants (the gangsters and criminals and drug dealers), so he's targeting the low-hanging fruit, who also just so happen to be the most desirable immigrants. There is virtually no relationship between his words and his administration's actions.

  5. Real Evidence: In the question from P.Y., there is reference to cars being burned, businesses being looted, law enforcement officers being assaulted, etc. Some of this is undoubtedly true, and it's almost certainly the best evidence there is in support of a crackdown. That said, it's hard to tell exactly how many bad acts have taken place, and exactly who the bad actors are. There are certainly people out there who don't have a particular agenda or alignment, and just wait for times of chaos to behave... well, chaotically. Also, if there are a few hundred (or maybe even a thousand) bad actors, that's out of a city of 4 million people (and a metro area of 13 million). That would seem to be a small minority. Even if we limit it to just the protesters, it's STILL a small minority. At the moment, there's a meme/comment/joke going around that goes something like this: "These so-called riots, that justified sending in the National Guard and the Marines, are more tame than what happens after the Lakers win a championship."

    There's a fair bit of truth to that. And given that the Lakers win a lot of championships, we do have a fair bit of evidence to work with, here.

  6. Fake Evidence: Meanwhile, a non-inconsequential portion of the "evidence" that shows how bad the rioting is, and that has been put forth on social and broadcast media, is, in fact, fake news. For example, there is a video of three wrecked LAPD cars, one engulfed in flames, making the rounds on eX-Twitter right now. However, the footage is actually from 2020 (the George Floyd protests).

    To take another example, this one from TikTok, there is a video that appears to show many hundreds of people marching and telling ICE to get out of town, because "We are Los Angeles!" The first problem here is that the marchers' behavior is entirely civil and peaceful. The second problem is the video is actually from a soccer match on May 18, when the Los Angeles Football Club faced their rival, the L.A. Galaxy. The marchers are actually LAFC fans, which is abundantly clear if you look at the video closely, since nearly everyone is wearing LAFC gear.

    There are a bunch of other examples like this (and that's before talking about AI deepfakes). In our experience, if one is telling a true story, or is giving a true accounting of events, one does not need to support one's case with fake evidence.

  7. Eyewitness Accounts: We have already noted that the experience of those Electoral-Vote.com staffers who live in the Los Angeles area (and there are actually three of us) is that the city has not turned into some sort of hellscape. To that, let us add this report we got from reader J.H. in San Luis Obispo, CA:
    My husband and I are former long-time residents of LA, and still return there frequently to visit friends and enjoy cultural events in the downtown area. For our most recent trip, we arrived in DTLA about 3:00 p.m. this past Saturday afternoon (having driven through Westlake, which had been the scene of action at a Home Depot the day before). We checked into our hotel at 3rd and Olive. From our 14th floor room we had a clear view to the west, north, and northeast, including City Hall and the Federal Building. We had no view to the south (the Paramount/Compton area, which had been the site of clashes that morning).

    We left the hotel for an early dinner just outside Disney Concert Hall, and then walked from there to the Music Center to attend the evening performance at the Mark Taper (Hamlet. My review: Don't bother.) It was apparently about this time that tRump announced he was deploying the National Guard to quell the "insurrection."

    About 10:00 p.m. we took the courtesy car back to the hotel. There were no sirens, no sign of any demonstrators, not even the usual helicopter traffic overhead. A lovely, relatively quiet (well, as quiet as DTLA ever gets) evening.

    Sunday morning was typical "June Gloom" overcast, but we still had a clear view of the City Hall and Federal Building area. No sign of anything abnormal. No sirens. No helicopters. No street blockages. No hordes of enraged maniacs. (But apparently this is about when the first National Guard troops arrived at the Detention Center.) We checked out of the hotel at noon and headed back over to the Music Center, enjoyed an hour or so of sitting on the Plaza (again, with a good view east toward City Hall, which is maybe 1,000 feet southeast of the Plaza). There were no sirens, no sign of any demonstrators, no sign of any smoke or fire, though we did see one helicopter, which seemed to be just enjoying some Sunday-morning lolly-gagging. We then headed into the Chandler for the matinee performance. (Rigoletto. My review: Quinn Kelsey is dynamite! See it!)

    Following the performance we got on the 110 heading north, transitioning to the North 101. It was about 5:30 p.m. or so then. Traffic was as bad, as it normally is on the 110, but we inched along steadily toward the 101 transition. That was the first time we saw anything unusual: a single California Highway Patrol car, flashing its lights, and giving a single almost-polite siren-chirp, to get us to make way for it. Its mission was to block the off-ramp (or transition ramp?). My guess is that this was about when the demonstrators moved out onto the 101, apparently down near the Union Station area. We continued on, got on the 101, and made our way up to West Hills in the Valley to rendezvous with our friends.

    That was it. Of course, if we had stayed over into Monday in DTLA, I suspect we would have seen the smoke from the Waymos that got torched Sunday evening. We tend to detach from our newsfeeds on trips like this, so we were not aware at all of the fact that L.A. was being attacked and destroyed by criminal mobs while we were there. Or perhaps we were just lucky enough to have wandered into one of the Alternate Universe DTLAs that exist. If only we could find our way back—we could just hang out there.
    Thanks, J.H.!

    We will also pass along this video from Jimmy Kimmel Live, for those who are interested:



    Kimmel is an Angeleno, too, and his show tapes from a studio located roughly 3 miles northwest of downtown. He also says that the "riots" have been completely overblown, and even shows footage of how calm things are outside the studio (noting that Disney felt perfectly comfortable moving forward with the world premiere of the film Elio). Kimmel is a Democrat, of course, but his first guest for that show was Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is also an Angeleno and who also said the "riots" have been grossly exaggerated.

  8. Outside Views: Further, outsiders have almost universally seen little evidence of serious urban unrest, and much evidence of an administration looking for an excuse to go full authoritarian. We recognize the Canadians are hardly impartial witnesses right now, but we decided to pick this video to share as our example, because it's very polite and yet very biting, and so almost humorous in how very Canadian it is. It's a press conference held by former MP Charlie Angus to talk about the upcoming G7. He begins:
    I offer my deep concern, solidarity and prayers with the people of California who are out in the streets unarmed, defending the rule of law against illegal kidnapping and deportation as they're being faced down by the military might of the United States Marines.

    We're not talking about creeping fascism here; this is full-on police-state tyranny from the gangster President Donald Trump and this is the man who will soon be crossing our border to attend the G7 meetings in Canada. I have received hundreds of messages of concern and outrage from Canadians that a convicted felon sexual predator and a man who has threatened our nation's sovereignty is being allowed into our country.

    I understand Prime Minister Carney's reluctance to escalate the situation with the MAGA president but we have to stop kidding ourselves and we have to be very honest about what we are being asked to engage with. Donald Trump poses a clear threat to American democracy, to Canadian sovereignty and to the international rule of law...
    It gets even more pointed from there.

    We could provide many more examples from non-American observers, but they are, as we note, almost universally in agreement with Angus. And, for those keeping score at home, we have just given you testimony from a reader, a prominent Democrat, a prominent Republican and a foreigner, and they're all saying pretty much the same thing.

  9. Drawing the Comparison: We'll offer one last observation along these lines. Many people who are in Los Angeles right now (including Z) can remember the L.A. Riots of 1992. Some people who are in Los Angeles right now (not including Z) can remember the Watts Riots. Both of those events had a broad impact, and it was tough to go anywhere in the city without seeing some evidence of the unrest that was unfolding. That's also true of the George Floyd protests, although those weren't L.A.-centric, of course.

    The point here is pretty obvious: If the current unrest was anything like those other incidents, the various folks listed above—us, reader J.H. in San Luis Obispo, Jimmy Kimmel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc., should be seeing SOME substantial indication. That is not the case.

  10. When Someone Tells You Who They Are, Believe Them: All of this said, sometimes it's not necessary to massage the evidence and to try to read between the lines. Sometimes, a person comes right out with it and tells you what's going on. Kristi Noem, who proves again and again to have no apparent awareness that some things are best left unsaid, came right out with it yesterday and announced exactly what is going on:
    The Department of Homeland Security and the officers and the agencies and the departments and the military people that are working on this operation will continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city. We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor had placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.
    So, the Trump administration does not actually care what happens on the ground, or if normal order is restored, they are/were planning to remain entrenched either way. And the goal, it would seem, is not really about immigrants or urban unrest at all, it's about deposing the democratically elected leadership of the city and the state.

(Z) often tells students that the evidence always points in multiple directions, and it's never a 100% slam dunk for one interpretation or the other. He also tells them that sometimes, the evidence is 50/50, or damn near it, and that's when it gets tough. But what's happening in L.A., at least based on current information, is not one of those 50/50 leaner cases. It's about as overwhelming as it gets that the tale the Trump administration is spinning, aided by the media/social media, is largely dishonest and inaccurate.

We may be wrong, of course—again, it's hard to get a handle on these things, especially while they are still happening. And we may be looking at things through Los Angeles-colored glasses. But we really don't think so.

The Politics

Perhaps it is a bit crass to talk about the politics of this situation while it's still unfolding. Perhaps not; we're not sure. What we do know is that what is happening right now is ALL about politics (and political theater) and has little to do with public safety, making the nation stronger, etc. And we are a politics-centered site. So, we are going to talk about the political dimension of this mess.

To start, The Bulwark's Jonathan Last has a very useful piece up right now headlined "The Protest Dilemma." The main point, which we've already agreed with this week, is that the Democrats (and other anti-Trump forces) have to walk a fine line here; on one side of that line is "we are pushing back against tyranny" and on the other side is "we are abetting lawbreaking, violence, etc." He also offers up these five general points about protesting:

  1. Protest can be powerful tools
  2. Not all protests are productive
  3. We can't know ahead of time which will be which
  4. Sometimes a ruling regime wants a protest movement as a foil
  5. Protests cannot go on indefinitely

Let us make this point in a slightly different way. On three occasions, Gallup polled Americans to gauge whether they think mass protests help or hurt the cause they intend to advance. "Hurt" was the response of 57%, 60% and 74% of respondents, across the three polls, while "Help" was the response of 27%, 27% and 16%. Those polls were not recent, incidentally. They were taken in May of 1961, 1963 and 1964, and were specifically asking about the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, we all know how that turned out, and on which side the judgment of history ultimately fell.

The point is that protesters/the resistance can win the day, but it's tough, and it requires good, disciplined messaging (which was obviously a strength of the Civil Rights Movement). There has already been some polling on the situation in Los Angeles, so we have a sense of where public opinion stands right now. The latest from YouGov reports that 36% of Americans approve of what the Trump administration is doing in Los Angeles right now, while 45% disapprove. A new Washington Post poll has it a little less lopsided, with 41% approving and 44% disapproving. However, much of that is knee-jerk partisanship, with Republicans overwhelmingly approving and Democrats strongly disapproving. Among independents, who are presumably the voters that will swing the elections next year, the Trump administration is 7 points underwater (34%-41%) according to YouGov and 15 points underwater (33%-48%) according to the Post.

Further, the Democrats have been focus-grouping this week, and have learned exactly what you would expect them to learn: If the events of Los Angeles, and immigration policy in general, are framed as "defending unfettered/undocumented immigration and/or lawbreaking," the blue team loses support. If they are framed as "pushing back against overreach and arbitrary and capricious use of government power," the blue gains support. So, the Democrats know what they have to do, and they're even starting out in a better place, public-opinion-wise, than the Civil Rights Movement did.

What's Next?

We very aggressively buried the lede for this item, because that's the structure that just seemed to work best. But now that we're nearing the end, we can take note of the other big news yesterday: Judge Charles Breyer (yes, brother of Stephen) ruled against the administration, and in no uncertain terms, decreeing:

[I]ndividuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous.
He concluded:
[Trump's] actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.

The ruling was quickly stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider the matter (and presumably issue a ruling) on Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit is pretty liberal, and the Trump administration's case appears to be pretty weak, so this is probably just due diligence, and there's likely another defeat coming down the pike in short order. At that point, we'll learn if the Supreme Court wants to take the case, or if they don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

So, there you have it, as of Thursday night. (Z)

Military Theater, Part II: The Speech

We are going to have some history in each of these three items—a moderate amount in the previous item, a small amount in this one, and a pretty large amount in the next one. So, hope you like history.

The problem that we're going to talk about here begins, as many problems that have "bloomed" in the last 5-15 years do, with Ronald Reagan. The President of the United States is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. More importantly, for our purposes here, he is an Officer of the United States. For the latter reason—and not, in fact, the former, despite popular belief—military personnel are thus required to salute the sitting president.

The gentlemen who wrote the Constitution, fearing the possibility of a military dictatorship, took pains to make clear that while the president is in charge of the armed forces, he is a civilian without a military rank. One implication of this is that while uniformed military personnel are required to salute, the president is not required to return the gesture. In fact, in order to keep the line between the military and the civilian command as bright and as red as is possible, presidents are not supposed to return the gesture. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower—all of whom spent a bit of time in the military, as you may have heard—were careful to observe this convention during their presidencies.

When Reagan became president, well, he loved him some pomp and circumstance. And while he was not really a budding fascist, he did love the military LIKE a budding fascist would. Plus, the Gipper WAS a veteran (albeit a veteran of narrating a bunch of World War II training films). So, he began to return the salutes he was getting. John Kline, a Marine officer and one of Reagan's aides, who would later become Rep. John Kline (R-MN), warned the President that might not be appropriate. Reagan then turned to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert H. Barrow, for advice, and was told: "You're the goddamn president. You can salute whoever you goddamn well please."

Ever since then, presidents have returned the salutes, because failing to do so (particularly for Democrats) can easily become fodder for the media (especially the right-wing media). Indeed, during Barack Obama's term, there was much carping about Obama's salutes—not that he didn't make them, but that they were not crisp enough. Anyhow, we presume it's clear how things like this blur the lines between "military" and "civilian," laying the groundwork for even more aggressive blurring—like, say, George W. Bush using an aircraft carrier (the USS Abraham Lincoln) and its crew as backdrop for the (laughably untrue) declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

Consistent with the overall theme of these three pieces, Donald Trump clearly wants to obliterate the line between civilian and military, and to turn the armed forces into his personal goon squad/Praetorian Guard/status symbol. We actually wanted to write this story up the day it happened, but then we ran out of time. In any event, the speech where Trump announced the name changes for all the military bases took place at Fort Bragg Fort Liberty Fort Bragg (but not THAT Bragg), If you really like punishment, you can watch the speech here:



However, what is important for our purposes is the backdrop—all those soldiers in uniform. Using those folks as a backdrop is a bad look, but it gets worse, because as Trump ran through his various talking points, including some anti-immigrant rhetoric, some slurs against Joe Biden, and a characterization of protesters in Los Angeles as "animals," the soldiers in the background hooted and hollered and cheered.

Our insta-response, on seeing this, is that there is no way those people were randomly selected. Most soldiers know full well they are supposed to remain above politics AND also take that responsibility seriously. It's simply impossible that a few hundred personnel, selected at random, would all be MAGA zealots who are willing to break the code and express their views. And, as it turns out, we were right. The people sitting behind Trump were carefully screened for three things: (1) to make sure they were MAGA, (2) to make sure they would be vocal about it, and (3) to make sure they weren't too fat. We are NOT joking about that last one.

In addition to using the soldiers as his living, breathing reality TV props, there were also numerous vendors selling MAGA gear during Trump's speech. That is also supposed to be a no-no on a military post, and an investigation has been commenced. We have no doubt that once it is complete, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will see to it that the responsible parties are properly disciplined.

And as long as we're at it, how about some bonus schadenfreude? Because while Trump was openly slurring people he is supposed to represent, and was tacitly engaged in fat-shaming, he also said some really dumb things. We will point out the two dumbest. First, he was rambling on about how every country that won World War I celebrates that victory, except the U.S. And, he added, the U.S. really should celebrate, because if not for that victory, Americans today might be speaking German and Japanese. Clearly, he's not aware that Japan was on the Allied side during World War I.

And then there's the really juicy one. Early in the speech, as he was in the middle of tearing down Joe Biden (yet again), Trump said: "I've known this guy for a long time. He was never the sharpest bulb." Many, many people made fun of the Donald for mixing up his metaphors, pointing out that it's either "never the sharpest knife/tool in the shed" or "never the brightest bulb." On the whole, if you're going to slander someone else's lack of intelligence, it's probably best not to put your own lack of intelligence on display.

But it actually gets better—and we haven't seen anyone else who noticed this. As some readers will know, the character of Biff Tannen in the Back to the Future movies was a thinly-veiled version of Trump. And in the movies, the not-so-bright Tannen tells Marty McFly, several times, to Make like a tree, and... get out of here. It is, of course, supposed to be "Make like a tree, and... leave." The point is to illustrate that Tannen is not the sharpest bulb. So what we had at Fort Bragg, then, was a case of life imitating art. (Z)

Military Theater, Part III: The Parade

And here comes history lesson #3. We have now reminded folks several times, both today and in the other posts this week, that the Founding Parents were very leery of military power. They saw the abuses that resulted from George III's use of his armies and, not long after the Constitution became a done deal, they got to witness the abuses that resulted from Napoleon's use of HIS armies.

Consequent to this, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were very sensitive to the trappings of European militarism, and trying to avoid those things as much as was possible. We've already written this week about the desire to keep the standing army (and thus the number of professional soldiers) small, and to rely mostly on citizen-soldiers. They also disliked mercenary soldiers, whose loyalty—by definition—is available to the highest bidder. And they were really wary of all the military pageantry that Europeans indulged in. This meant, for example, that the Revolutionary War generation (and several generations thereafter) disapproved of medals and other military decorations, such that the U.S. basically did not have ANY of them until the Civil War (and even then, only the Medal of Honor). And they really, really disapproved of military parades.

Consequently, the U.S. does not have much of a history of military parades. That's not to say it has NO history, however. So, we're going to give an overview of the subject, and we'll try to be reasonably comprehensive. That starts by noting that there are three different general types of events that might plausibly be called "military parades."

The first of those is parades that just happen to have some participation from current or past military personnel. The parades at presidential inaugurations are in this category. So is the Rose Parade and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Local parades often include local veterans/personnel; this was particularly true in the 19th century.

The second category is drill presentations that are called "parades" because there's no better word for them. For example, on Fridays in the summer, the Marine Corps Barracks stages a one-hour parade that involves about 200 personnel performing drill and concluding with a 21-gun salute. The Marines do a similar thing at the Lincoln Memorial on Tuesdays in the summer; that one's called the Sunset Parade.

Neither of those is what we will be seeing this weekend, when the nation ostensibly celebrates the 250th birthday of Donald Trump, and the 79th birthday of the U.S. Army. Er, correct that, it's apparently the 250th birthday of the Army; to our surprise, it's not Trump that's 250 years old. Anyhow, this is the rarest kind of parade, at least in the U.S., though it's not entirely without precedent.

Far and away the most famous military parade of this sort is the Grand Review of the Armies, which took place over two days in May of 1865. In essence, every Union Army unit that could plausibly reach Washington after the cessation of hostilities in the Civil War headed to the capital. About 80,000 men marched down Pennsylvania Avenue on the first day, with 85,000 marching on the second day, as still-new President Andrew Johnson and General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant looked on:

The shot is taken looking up Pennsylvania avenue, and you can see about 300 soldiers marching toward the camera, while a sizable crowd looks on

The goals here were: (1) to celebrate victory in the Civil War, (2) to reward the men for their service and (3) to allow them to bid adieu to each other and to the military, as most of them were mustered out a week later. Donald Trump presumably would not have enjoyed this parade, as Confederates were verboten.

Nearly all of the other large-size parades in American history were also victory parades. There were a bunch of them after World War I, with the largest being held in New York. There were a bunch of them after World War II, with the largest again being held in New York. There was also a victory parade after the Persian Gulf War, and there was a parade in 1943 (in New York, naturally) to raise funds and rally support for the war effort. None of these parades came close to the 165,000 men who marched in the Grand Review; they all featured between 8,000 and 20,000 soldiers. The Trump parade, incidentally, will have about 6,000.

So, if you want to do some squinting, the parade this weekend is within the general ZIP Code of "normal," in the sense that it commemorates a momentous event. Although you actually have to do some more squinting to make that part true. The 250th birthday of the Continental Army is on Saturday; the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army, by contrast, is on June 3, 2034. Undoubtedly, the White House staff carefully weighed the historiographical arguments, and decided the June 14, 2025, date showed more fealty to the historical record. There couldn't possibly be any other reason they preferred June 14 now, as opposed to some other June date 9 years in the future, right?

In the end, Trump may end up very disappointed. There is a 60% chance of rain, D.C. hotels are reporting that they aren't getting very many reservations, and there are ads on Craigslist for seat fillers. Those ads might be fake, we suppose, but given the weather and the lack of reservations, they might not be. Plus, the birthday present Trump really wants is the opportunity to crack down on some protesters, and to give them a taste of what L.A. is experiencing right now. He probably won't get it. The "No Kings" folks are specifically telling people to stay away from D.C., and to redirect to Philadelphia (for locals) and to all the other cities that are holding events. We will see how many freelance protesters decline to take that advice.

Let us conclude by noting that if readers happen to attend the parade (not too likely for the readership of this site), or if they attend one of the "No Kings" protests, we would welcome reports and/or photos at comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with the subject line "No Kings." (Z)

Never Forget: On Guard

Given the subject matter above, this submission from reader C.T. in Delaware, OH seemed an ideal choice for today:

I guess I never thought the National Guard would get so much attention from Electoral-Vote.com. Don't get me wrong, the coverage is warranted and that's a shame because it's probably not a good thing when the National Guard is being covered in depth on a politics site.

Your write-up regarding the National Guard makeup and order construct was excellent. You mentioned the Title 32 and Title 10 orders, which is an important distinction. Plus, there is an additional way for the Guard to be activated and that is through State Active Duty. This is where the governor calls up the Guard, but they are not on federal orders. They become state employees and are paid by the state using state money, fall under state HR, state workman's comp, etc. For example, if there is a natural disaster or other situation, the governor can call up the units needed onto State Active Duty and the state pays the bills. Typically, with almost all Guard activations, there is a federal disaster declaration, which then allows guard members to be put on Title 32 status. Or, what often happens is that the federal disaster declaration is made immediately before the Guard is activated, so the Guard is never actually on State Active Duty and are just on Title 32, per the federal disaster declaration.

I say all of this because you also mention that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) called up the Texas National Guard. I'm curious on what status, as I haven't seen any reporting on that yet. Texas has in the past used State Active Duty—e.g., Operation Lone Star—for long periods of time. So if the Governor wants to call up the Guard and the state legislature wants to fund it, then it's a lawful use of the National Guard. That means that, for this call up, maybe Texas will pay, but that is doubtful. I'm assuming Texas will request some frivolous federal disaster declaration and get it. So, Abbott gets to play strongman and doesn't have to pay for it. Will other states with Republican governors (Florida, Tennessee, etc.) be tempted to do something similar? Send the National Guard into cities to crack down on peaceful protests, all paid for by the Federal government? Or, it could go the other way, with Donald Trump withholding the authority when actually needed. When there is a natural disaster in Oregon, New York, etc., and the Guard is needed to help the state respond, will Trump withhold that disaster declaration to prevent the federal government from paying for the National Guard response?

I am currently in my 24th year of serving in the Ohio Air National Guard and I fear that the National Guard is going to become another political pawn, which will cause severe harm to its reputation. These activations are going to hurt morale and unit cohesion for no reason. Trump and Abbott do not care about anything but themselves and they don't care about the damage they will cause the National Guard as an organization and its reputation. The National Guard has built up a lot of goodwill in the past 20 years through its involvement in many overseas deployments. But more importantly, the National Guard has really shined in the past 5+ years through its homeland mission to support state and local governments during natural disasters and during the COVID pandemic. Additionally, most individual Guard members have endured hardships of overseas deployments as well as being called on short notice for the state in order to support the communities they live in. For me, anyway, those personal hardships are worth it, as I get to support the state when the state needs the help the most. Plus, I knew that was part of the deal when signing up for the Air National Guard. But these cases of using the National Guard right now serve no legitimate purpose. I realize that and I am a member of the same organization that was responsible for the Kent State shooting. So, I fear history will repeat itself. The way to avoid another Kent State shooting is not through better training, better intel or through better equipment. The BEST way to avoid another Kent State is to avoid putting the National Guard in situations they serve no benefit to anyone in the first place. The way Trump and Abbott are using the Guard only benefits themselves. They get to play strongman. Consequences to the individual guardsman, the guard units, the state, or the nation be damned.

Thanks, C.T. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: The Miserable Ones

Frankly, we have had enough of Donald Trump for today. And so, we were planning to make this item about someone else—we had it all written up and ready to go. But then... well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men.

Put another way, the schadenfreude was so thick at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday that you could have cut it with a knife. Readers will recall that, during his first term, Trump stayed away from that venue like it was a leper colony, because he knew he would be... extremely unwelcome, to say the least. He has endeavored to remake it in his own image, by swapping out the management and canceling certain programming. Judging by events this week, it's not working out very well.

The current show at the Kennedy is Les Misérables, and Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, VP J.D. Vance, and Second Lady Usha Vance were all in attendance. We will note, for the sake of completeness, that Trump did get some cheers. However, they were limited, and somewhat muted, and the rest of the evening was pretty much a disaster on all counts. A rundown:

Later this month, the Kennedy Center will be staging The Lion King, a play about an evil king who secured power by betraying his people and using dirty tricks against his predecessor. Maybe the blissfully unaware Trump will show up for that one, too. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: The Magnificent Ones

Last week's freudenfreude was about television and cultural change in the 1970s. So, how about we follow that up with one about music and cultural change in the 1960s?

There aren't too many American musicians who did more to change the zeitgeist in that decade than Sly Stone, leader of Sly and the Family Stone, and Brian Wilson, leader of the Beach Boys. Stone's best known song is almost certainly "Everyday People," which was the first song to go to #1 on both the Billboard soul and Billboard Hot 100 charts. He was also, alongside James Brown, one of the first Black artists to confront racism in his music in a direct fashion. That includes certain songs that are in-your-face enough that we still can't really print the names.

Wilson's band, also made up of family members, spent its first couple of years cranking out bubble-gum-style pop. Then came the 1965 Beatles album Rubber Soul where, as Wilson himself put it, "every song was a GAS." This was not the usual practice up to that point; albums were usually a few singles, a couple of covers, and a handful of throwaway tracks. This motivated him to try to one-up the Beatles, and the result was the 1966 magnum opus Pet Sounds. Not only did that record, which included such classics as "God Only Knows" and "Sloop John B," advance the Beach Boys' sound AND record production about 10 years, it also inspired Paul McCartney to return serve, resulting in Revolver and then Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. During those same sessions, Wilson also wrote and recorded "Good Vibrations," which the chatbots insist was on Pet Sounds. It wasn't; it was a single only.

Although Stone and Wilson had very different musical styles, and different views on how overtly political one's music should be, they nonetheless had an awful lot in common. They were both gifted songwriters. They were both studio wizards and, together with the Beatles, helped to turn the studio into an "instrument." And they both helped to introduce mind-altering substances into the world of music, and into the larger culture.

Unfortunately, the drugs were also the downfall for both musicians. Both had underlying psychological conditions that were certainly not helped by the drugs, and that may well have been worsened by them. As a result, the vast majority of the artists' musical output was confined to a roughly 6-year period (1960-66 for Wilson, 1967-73 for Stone). Thereafter, they produced new work only erratically, before stopping altogether. And they were afflicted at a time when drugs were frowned upon, and psychological problems were much tougher to treat. So, they got considerably less help than they would have today. One wonders what the world lost, as a result.

Stone and Wilson both died this week, each at the age of 82. Stone's passing seemed to get a little less attention; maybe his music was a little bit more of an acquired taste, or maybe it's because it didn't find quite as much new life in the 21st century as Wilson's did, or maybe it's because Stone passed away first. In any case, they're both giants, and the world will not see their like again.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones