I’m under no illusions: a significant minority of our citizens are desperately unhappy with our system of government and our inclusive values of equality and justice for all. They make it plain, and I get it.
They include evangelicals who’ve always hated church/state separation. Racists pining for Jim Crow. Paternalists who want to re-establish the ‘traditional’ role of women and make decisions for them. Corporate chieftains eager to slip free of the ‘administrative state.’
Above all, they are people attracted by an authoritarian vision because they understand that none of the above will come to pass in a participatory, pluralist democracy. They’re *done* with democracy (see Project 2025 and Trump’s latest about voting becoming a thing of the past).
The existence of this minority is, of course, troublesome. Their beliefs have deep, multi-generational roots and we cannot, in this or any other near term election cycle, magically convert them. But it’s vital to recognize that they are not new to American society or politics.
What *is* new is that one of our major parties has gradually, over decades, fallen under the sway of this retrograde minority. They are in triumphal mood and, I think correctly, believe they’ve reached their high water mark. They believe it’s now or never.
While the beliefs of this minority cannot be changed anytime soon, their political foothold in our government can be. They can, and must, be so punished at the ballot box that they start to remember which country they’re living in, and begin to adjust their goals to reality.
I say again: these atavistic forces have been with us since the beginning. We’ve largely managed, by democratic processes, to keep them on the margins and to forge ahead despite them. We must do so now, emphatically. The majority must work its will.
I see many claiming that we’re in a ‘war.’ I agree, but only in the sense of Bismark’s remark that “politics is the extension of war, by other means.” A *decisive* electoral defeat of Trump and the GOP is vitally necessary, for the survival of our democratic government. END.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵 The Biden mantra, “building the economy from the middle out and the bottom up,” has borne fruit. It’s real. And it has implications for the distribution of wealth and resources in the country.
The Dem party’s current convulsions are directly related to these policies. Fervent support for Biden is rooted, I believe, in support for these policies and an understanding that Biden is ‘walking the Democratic talk’ like no other POTUS since FDR.
Opposition to Biden appears to have several strands (including career antagonisms and opportunism), but an important one is wealthy donors’ resistance to tax and other aspects of Biden economic policy.
🧵As a practical matter, taking campaign finance and ballot access laws and rules into account as well as everything else, I see only two plausible scenarios now:
1. Biden insists on running (for all the right reasons, not ‘ego’ or ‘obstinacy’) and doubters get on board, or
2. Biden stands aside, and annoints Harris. Any thoughts of a different candidate in the top spot are fanciful in my view. People pressuring Biden to withdraw should be ready for and supportive of this scenario. If they’re not, we’ll have chaos and will lose.
With regard to the 1st scenario, the issues are (i) will Biden re-think a decision he’s already firmly communicated, and (ii) if Biden is immovable (genuinely convinced he’s the best candidate), how long will it take doubters to swing into line ?
🧵Brief thoughts on speculation about Biden’s possible ‘cognitive impairment’ (as distinct from stuttering/cluttering etc.): (1) if he is ‘cognitively impaired’ to a degree that affects his job performance, it’s a relevant fact I’d like to know;
(2) I haven’t seen or read anything yet that persuades me that that is the case; (3) those in regular contact with him have offered their personal accounts to the contrary and I’d be surprised if they’re lying; and
(4) I’m confident Biden himself would make the appropriate call if he felt unable to do the job.
🧵A lot of history will get looked at in a new light after today’s immunity ruling. Interesting, for example, to look at Watergate under the new rubric. 22 henchmen, including the AG, were convicted on charges related to a break-in and coverup authorized and directed by Nixon.
When Mitchell, Haldeman, Erlichman, Krogh, Liddy and the rest did time, they at least had the small comfort of knowing that, but for the Ford pardon, their Individual-1 would have been right beside them (Nixon had been indicted by a GJ). “No man above the law.”
Same for the burglars Nixon ordered to break in to Dan Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, seeking to discredit Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers.
A D-Day related 🧵on one of my father’s closest friends, Lt. William (“Bill”) Hamilton Shaw, USN. Born to Methodist missionaries in Pyongyang in 1922, Bill finished high school there and spoke native Korean. He was exactly two years older than my father.
Bill enrolled at Ohio Wesleyan in 1939. When the U.S. entered the war, he enlisted in the Navy and was commissioned. He served as the XO of PT-518 in Operation Overlord. Two weeks after D-Day, Bill (at helm below) piloted Eisenhower on his first cross-Channel visit to Normandy.
After WWII ended, Bill went ‘home’ to Korea. There he met my father. In 1946-47, they served together as advisors helping to establish, more or less from scratch, what is now the ROK’s Naval Academy, at Jinhae-gu, Changwon, Korea.
🧵A pair of my posts earlier today prompted *many* to opine that Judge Cannon must be receiving 'coaching.' Here's background on the rules regarding 'ex parte communications' with federal judges.
The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, effective Mar. 12, 2019, governs all federal judges other than Supreme Court Justices (a subject for another day !). uscourts.gov/sites/default/…
Canon 3A, section 4 says, in part:
"Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers."