Progressives' predicament: To vote, or not to vote?

The nomination of Joe Biden and by the Democratic Party has put progressive independents in a double-bind. They’re asking themselves:

Is a second term of a corrupt president more or less acceptable than a vote for a corrupt establishment?

If the president in question were anyone other than Donald Trump, the answer would be easy. Corruption has become so entrenched in our political system — thanks to corporate money, Gerrymandering, etc. — that voting for any candidate who enables this system seems nothing less than a vote for corruption.

Joe Biden has spent his career enabling the system, from his oversight of the Anita Hill hearings to his vote in favor of the Iraq War. And, perhaps most tellingly, his openness to weakening Social Security and his opposition to universal health care.

Now, there’s no question that Donald Trump is worse. There isn’t enough space in this article to enumerate his myriad failings. Voting for Trump is not an option for thinking progressives.

The question is whether voting for Biden is.

What ifs

A vote for Biden will further entrench a corrupt system that relies on big-money corporate donors who’ll expect something in return from whomever they support. And yes, they’ll get it.

If Trump wins, on the other hand, he’ll continue to wreak havoc with everything from healthcare to minority rights. He’ll likely get a chance to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices. He’ll keep lining his pockets and telling lies, and his victory will affirm everything so many progressives loathe about his blustering, egocentric approach to politics.

Will the damage caused by Trump be lasting? Certainly, a Trumpist high court would be a long-term nightmare. And the longer Trumpism flourishes, the more entrenched it will become.

On the other hand, however, the longer voters actively support candidates who cater to corporate donors, rather than the voters themselves, the more entrenched that pattern will become. And, in consequence, the less anyone’s vote will matter eight, 12 or 16 years down the line.

One-dimensional Joe

It’s tempting to say, “I’ll put my checkmark by Biden’s name, but I don’t believe in him and it won’t be a vote for him. It will be a vote against Trump.”

Biden won’t care. He’s run his entire campaign, not on issues or personal character, but on the mere idea that he’s the person best positioned to beat Trump. He doesn’t care if you support him, so long as that checkmark is next to his name.

He’s not running as Joe Biden. He tried that twice before and failed to win a single primary. He’s running as “the safe guy” and the “anti-Trump.” But “safe” means maintaining the status quo — which, in turn, means winking at corruption while putting your hand out to accept money from as many corporate donors as you can find.

In doing so, Biden is enabling corruption.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively engaged in it. Is one worse than the other? Sure. Should either one be acceptable? Surely not.

Blame game

So I can understand those who choose to vote for Biden on the grounds that four more years of Trump could be catastrophic. But I can also understand those who sit the election out or vote for a third-party candidate on the grounds that the corrupt system itself is a bigger problem even than the most corrupt individual ever to hold the office. There are potent arguments to be made both ways.

But whichever course an individual chooses to follow (and I can’t stress this strongly enough), there is no good argument for shaming those who disagree with you. There is no good argument for casting blame on those with whom you largely agree of the issues, who are following their consciences and exercising their right to vote. And there is no good argument for pressuring, goading or threatening them unless they act the way you think they should.

That’s not democracy.

And, apart from being rude and childish, such behavior almost never works: People who feel disparaged and dismissed tend to dig in their heels rather than even consider doing things differently — regardless of their political persuasion. (Mitt Romney’s remark about the “47 percent” and Hillary Clinton’s derision toward “deplorables” on the one hand and “Bernie Bros” on the other provoked precisely that reaction, and cost both of them at the polls.)

It’s the system, stupid

Besides, it’s not the voters who are at fault for a lost election. It’s the candidate and, to varying degrees, the system.

That’s why the current situation is so galling. The system has, as it often does, produced two candidates who are woefully lacking. No, they’re not equally bad — I’m not suggesting some false equivalency here. But whichever one wins, it will make the situation worse by reinforcing a corrupt, bought-and-paid-for system that churns out “lesser of two evils.”

At least, they appear as two evils to many of us. It can feel like a choice between Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade.

For corporate sponsors, by contrast, the result is a win-win. They often donate to both major candidates, so that, either way, they’ve got someone in their pocket. It matters little to them whether that someone is an incompetent egomaniac or a status quo partisan hack.

Worst-case scenario

Maybe, at this point, it doesn’t matter to the future of the country, either.

Here’s a chilling thought: Trump’s scorched-earth presidency and corporate corruption may have both already done so much damage already that our democracy is beyond repair.

That bleak prospect is what keeps many people from bothering to vote. I’m not saying that’s the best response, merely that it’s understandable. You can rebuke them for their supposed apathy — and alienate them further. Or you can consider the possibility that, instead of caring too little, they actually cared too much. And that, at a certain point, people stop are bound to stop caring in self-defense if caring never makes a difference anyway.

It’s not being a sore loser. That’s not it at all. Most people don’t stop caring if they’re losing a fair fight. They stop caring if they believe the game is rigged and they never had a chance in the first place.

Criticizing them won’t help. Only one thing will: Leveling the playing field.

And barring a miracle, whichever candidate wins in November, that won’t happen.    

Trump vs. Biden: 10 things it says about the U.S.A. in 2020

1. Hope is dead

Remember when Barack Obama ran on the theme of hope? It seems like a million years ago. Joe Biden isn’t running on the idea that we can actually make progress. In fact, he’s not offering anything substantially new. Instead, he’s promising to return us to a mythical “golden age” (the Obama years, ironically), in which everything was somehow great and wonderful. I’ve even got a slogan for him: “Make America Great Again.” Oops. I guess that’s already taken. Trump’s nomination was the shot across our bow, and Biden’s coronation is the answering volley. Together, they signal that both parties have abandoned their ideals and sacrificed hope for the future at the altar of yearning for a past that never was – except maybe in the era of snake oil and sweatshops.

2. Fear reigns supreme

This isn’t new. In fact, it’s the rule, not the exception. Politicians know this, and they play on it. Fear of nuclear war in 1964. Fear of terrorism in 2004. Fear of immigrants in 2016. Fear of Trump in 2020. Occasionally, hope rears its head, but it’s an anomaly. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and a few others who have dared to suggest looking to the future instead of the past have been sidelined by fear that their ideas were too “radical” — even ideas, such as universal health care, that are standard operating procedure for the rest of the civilized world. But hey, that’s not how we do it here in Merica, where one candidate wants destroy the inadequate safety net we have and the other has vowed to destroy a better one if anybody even tries to build it.

3. Winning is everything…

Or, rather, the only thing. Biden’s rallying cry throughout the primaries hasn’t been a platform or a policy proposal. It’s been this: “I can beat Donald Trump.” Again, this sounds a lot like someone else we know: Trump is, famously, obsessed with winning. It doesn’t matter what. It doesn’t matter how. It only matters that you win. In the words of Hillary Clinton: “I don’t care who the nominee is. I don’t care. As long as it’s somebody who can win...” Treating politics as a team sport isn’t new: The two-party system encourages it. The difference is that now, it’s no longer merely an undercurrent that drives the process; it’s a mission statement. And suddenly, nothing else really matters. Not policies. Not people. As Al Davis said, “Just win, baby.”

4. …And so is instant gratification

Long-term goals are ignored or dismissed for the sake of short-term election wins. Instead of addressing the major flaws in our democratic system, politicians exploit them. The list is too long to list here, but includes unlimited corporate funding; a process that rewards campaigning instead of governing; the Electoral College; gerrymandering; superdelegates; irrelevant primaries (most  of them, after South Carolina) voter suppression... Politicians like Trump and Biden don’t bring up the tilted playing field, because it benefits them. And while they might give lip service to long-term challenges like lifting people out of poverty, dealing with climate change, or reducing health care costs, their real pitch is merely: “I can beat the other guy.” The only long-term priority either side really cares about is the makeup of the Supreme Court, which, once again, is just about winning.

5. The opposition is the enemy

For years, it was assumed that both parties wanted what was best for the country; they just had different ideas about how to get there. That’s no longer the case. The other side is no longer “the loyal opposition” but an evil enemy out do destroy the country. Politicians have figured out that the key to winning is fear, and there’s no better way to instill fear in people than to demonize and dehumanize the other side. It works in war, where it leads to atrocities. The Vietnamese weren’t women or children, they were subhuman “Gooks.” And it works in politics, too. (Is Trump’s use of belittling nicknames any different?) So now we’re in a civil war between red and blue, and when individual citizens are wounded in the crossfire, it doesn’t matter. They’re not people. They’re just collateral damage.

6. It’s about loyalty, not values

Trump demands personal loyalty above all else. But are Democrats any better? After Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, those who didn’t vote for her were excoriated online as though they were Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, and Brutus all rolled into one. They’ll likely use the same treatment on anyone who doesn’t vote for Biden in 2020. And it’s not just enough to vote for the person, you have to offer unflinching, undying loyalty. Clinton said as much when she all but accused Bernie Sanders of costing her the election even though he endorsed and campaigned for her. John F. Kennedy’s plea has been warped to become: “Ask not what your candidate can do for your country, ask what you can do for your candidate.” Whether or not you voted for him in the primary (and it’s still nearly always “him.”)

7. Independents are screwed

The two-party system doesn’t naturally lend itself to independent thinking. If there are only two options, you tend to gravitate toward one or the other. But the “winning is everything” mentality has made things worse. Today’s partisan climate rewards tribalists, conformists and dittoheads. People who might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another are excluded because they can’t be trusted. Never Trumpers are ridiculed as RINOs by the right, and those who don’t support the Democratic standard-bearer are blamed for election losses by the left (rather than blaming the candidate for failing to make a compelling case). Independent thought isn’t just inconvenient, it’s anathema, and free speech isn’t protected, it’s shamed as blasphemy.

8. Compromise is dead

The old skill set of “working across the aisle,” touted as recently (though somewhat disingenuously) as the George W. Bush administration, has fallen by the wayside. When the other side is seen as the enemy, any civility or attempt to actually work together is viewed as complicity. Or treason — one of Trump’s favorite words. Politicians talk a lot about unity, but they don’t mean they intend to compromise. What they mean is, “I’ll tell you want to believe and how to act, then you fall into line like a good little puppy.” Compromise has, in fact, become a dirty word. Instead of give and take, or meeting in the middle, it’s more often viewed as contamination: “The integrity of our message has been compromised” by those who dare to think for themselves.

9. Corporations run the show

No matter who wins in November, the next president will be a pawn of corporate donors. Trump boldly declared in 2016 that he’d be using his own money to run for president. No lobbyists. No donors. Yet, this year, to date, he’s raised $164 million of not his own money. Bernie Sanders raised more than that from thousands upon thousands of small donors, and there was talk that his success in doing so might shift the balance of power back to actual voters. But it didn’t. Joe Biden, who relied instead on corporate donors, won the nomination. So, guess who’s going to be running the country the next four years. That’s right: corporations.

10. We’ve lost our way

George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” and his successor, John Adams, opined: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader.” Alexander Hamilton’s take: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” And James Madison remarked on humans’ propensity to fall into animosity “when no substantial occasion presents itself.” Indeed, the remarked, “the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly actions and excite their most violent conflicts.” Yet, here we are. Donald Trump is no George Washington, and Joe Biden is no James Madison. But far worse: The system we have is not the system our founders envisioned. It’s a bad counterfeit and a perverse caricature of the democratic republic they believed they’d established. They’re not just rolling over in their graves. With any luck, their ghosts will be coming back to haunt us. It wouldn’t be half as scary as what we’re dealing with right now, and besides, we might learn something from it all.

Trump laughs as Democrats do his dirty work for him

Someone needs to tell the Democrats running for president to watch Independence Day. Or maybe brush up on their history of World War II.

See, there’s this concept of banding together against a common enemy that they just don’t seem to understand.

For all the hand-wringing about Donald Trump and how he’s changed the game — and the stakes — in this year’s presidential election, Democrats this primary season are operating as though it’s business as usual.

Instead of focusing their fire on that common enemy, they’ve circled the wagons ... and set their sights on one another. Joe Biden mocks Pete Buttigieg’s inexperience. Buttigieg, Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar seek to undermine Bernie Sanders by saying he can’t get elected (even though polls show him running just as well, or better, against Trump than his Democratic rivals).

Candidates spar over universal healthcare, minority rights and other issues — all worthy considerations. But instead of targeting Trump, with whom they vehemently disagree, they’re nitpicking each one another to death. They’re so concerned that maybe “a socialist can’t beat Trump” or “a woman can’t beat Trump” or “a gay man can’t beat Trump” or “a mayor can’t beat Trump” or “an old guy can’t beat Trump” that they’re trying to kill each other off with elephant guns that will be out of ammunition by the time November rolls around.

By that time, Trump will have all these sound bites showing Democrats blasting each other other, and he’ll use them against whoever wins the nomination.

My father, a political science professor, called this phenomenon, “Your own guy says so.” If Buttigieg says Sanders’ talk of universal healthcare is dangerous, Trump can use that. If Biden says Buttigieg lacks the experience to be president, he’ll use that, too. It’s all right there on videotape.

The complicit media

The media, of course, feed into all this, not because it’s in the public interest, but because bare-knuckle brawls make good theater (and ratings!). Forget all the hoopla about CNN or MSNBC carrying water for the Democrats. They’re not out to get Democrats elected. They’re out for ratings ... which is, in fact, the same reason Fox echoes Trumpian talking points. They don’t care about Trump. Not really. They care about their bottom line. Viewers tune in, advertisers buy spots, the network makes money.

Anyone who thinks any network’s foremost mission is to elect this or that candidate is fooling themselves. They’re in it for the Benjamins, plain and simple.

Which is why CNN and MSNBC are helping to destroy the Democrats’ chances of winning, whether they’re willing to admit it or not. Four more years of Trump is the best thing that could happen to them. It perpetuates outrage, which perpetuates viewers, which perpetuates ratings, which keeps the cash flowing.

All those town halls and debates aren’t any kind of public service. They’re aired for the same reason pay-per-view is showing the Wilder-Fury heavyweight rematch this weekend. For the same reason car crashes and fires lead the local evening news. Conflict sells. Brutality raises ratings. They don’t want to see Elizabeth Warren try to play peacemaker among her fellow Democrats, or hear Sanders say he doesn’t care about Hillary Clinton’s damn emails. They want to see Democrats going for the throat. They want to see an embittered Clinton lashing out at Sanders four years after the fact, and they want to see Sanders react.

They absolutely loved the Iowa caucus debacle, because viewers stayed tuned to find out the delayed results, and because it created still more conflict. Then they could pontificate and hand-wring as though they’re above it all. Yeah, right.

And they don’t want Trump out of office. They love the guy, because he’s the archvillain everyone (on the left, anyway) loves to hate. Who are the Avengers without a Thanos? Who’s Batman without the Joker? Trump knows they need him, and he goads them with it, and the Democrats respond with...

Business as usual. Distract one another from the real opponent by getting into a family food fight, while the other guy goes around selling bogus promises of filet mignon dinners at the steakhouse down the street — which is really just a front for a two-bit mob operation.

Democrats are fiddling around while what used to be America burns. The media bring it all right into our living rooms. And Trump’s just laughing all the way to a second term.

10 ways Trump and Dershowitz are kindred souls

It’s no wonder Donald Trump chose Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz to represent him at his impeachment trial.

These men are two peas in a pod. Trump personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is more of an attack dog in the Trump mold, but beyond that surface similarity, Trump and Dershowitz have far more in common, and it runs to the core of who both men are.

It turns out, Trump and Dershowitz have quite a lot in common. Consider the following:

1.

They both trample on the truth. Trump has done so more than 15,000 times since taking office, according to The Washington Post. And Dershowitz? Consider this gem: “The courtroom oath — to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth — is applicable only to witnesses... because the American justice system is built on a foundation of not telling the whole entire truth.” When Dershowitz said this, he basically admitting he has no obligation to tell the whole truth. Which pretty much shoots his credibility. Of course, lawyers and politicians are both notorious for spinning the facts to benefit their own interests. In a list of 15 professions in a 2018 Gallup poll ranked lawyers 12th and members of Congress 15th (politicians) sandwiched around business executives and car dealers. But that’s just the beginning of the common ground between Trump and Dershowitz.

2.

They don’t care what the experts think. Trump thinks he knows more about war than four-star generals and doesn’t believe climate change is a problem, even though nearly every scientist says it is. Dershowitz, meanwhile, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of legal scholars who say impeachment does not require a statutory crime. His response, when confronted with this fact? “Most of the scholars disagree with me. I think they’re wrong.”

3.

They hate admitting mistakes. Or apologizing. Trump hardly ever does (the rare exception being his televised apology for disgusting remarks made on an Access Hollywood tape). When confronted about his own record, Dershowitz tries to dance around the subject like, well, a lawyer. In 1998, he argued that abuse of trust was impeachable; in 2020, he said it wasn’t. When Anderson Cooper asked him if he’d been wrong before, he answered, “No, I wasn’t wrong.” He would say he was “much more correct right now.” People averse to admitting mistakes have one thing in common: egos. The big kind. The fragile kind.

4.

They love the spotlight. Most presidents do, to be sure. But most presidents don’t put their names on hotels. And while we’re at it, can you name another chief executive who has used $60,000 donated for charity to buy a portrait of himself? Dershowitz’s actions speak louder than his words. He’s drawn to cable news broadcasts like the Mothman to a disaster waiting to happen. Like Trump, a former reality TV host, Dershowitz loves those cameras. And he also loves those high-profile clients that ensure he stays in the headlines:  O.J. Simpson. Jim Bakker. Michael Milken. Jeffrey Epstein. ’Nuff said.

5.

They associate with shady characters. In Trump’s case, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates... In the case of Dershowitz, see the list directly above (which actually makes Trump’s bunch seem tame by comparison). These were, of course, not personal friends, but clients. Still, lawyers such as Dershowitz don’t have to take such cases. Why choose clients like these? Why not let the public defender do it? Because... see above: Ego. Spotlight.

6.

They defy common sense. Trump uses a mix of intimidation, media marketing and hot-button topics like immigration, religious issues and gun rights. Dershowitz does it through legal arguments that make no sense. According to Dershowitz, a mixed motive is not corrupt. But that’s what “corrupt” means! If you put arsenic in a glass of milk, you’ve corrupted it. The milk is still there, but the whole mixture is toxic because you’ve added the poison. Put it another way: Dershowitz and the president’s legal team argued that a president can’t be impeached if he has a mixed motive. So, if someone steals a car because his mom needs a ride to the supermarket... that must be OK.

7.

They shatter norms. Trump’s all about doing things his way: traditional standards be damned. (This is ironic when you think about it, since the Constitution is the ultimate traditional standard in American secular life.) Trump pulls out of treaties, sends unappointed cronies to foreign countries to dig up bullshit on political opponents, and governs by Twitter. You get the idea. Dershowitz, meanwhile, suggests that it’s impossible to impeach a president who does something underhanded to get elected. Why? Because the president thinks his election is in the public interest! And if he thinks so, it must be true, right?

8.

They love to fight. And not just fight, but fight for extreme positions. As Laurence Tribe, another Harvard legal mind, said of Dershowitz: “He revels in taking positions that ultimately are not just controversial but pretty close to indefensible.” Sound like someone else you know? Former Trump publicist Alan Marcus told Politico: “If he’s not in a fight, he looks for one. He can’t stop.” And the more outrageous Trump’s position, the more people will criticize him, and the more he can...

9.

They play the victim. Trump is the all-time champ in this department, with his absurd claim that “no politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly” than he has. By playing the victim, he gains sympathy from his followers, and suggests any attack on him is an attack on them, too. It’s been an effective strategy. And Dershowitz? When Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin dared to challenge his “great and unmatched wisdom” (oops, sorry, that’s Trump’s phrase, not Dershowitz’s) on CNN, he accused them of being “two bullies.” Or maybe they were doing their job.

10.

They claim to be something they’re not. Trump, a billionaire, the champion of the common man? This is a guy who spent $25 million to settle a lawsuit alleging he’d defrauded students who signed up for his non-accredited Trump University. A guy who violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with union workers at his Las Vegas hotel. I could go on. Trump the champion of churches? Yes, Trump belonged to a church New York City church in the mid-2000s, but the pastor didn’t see him there once in five years. Dershowitz, for his part, calls himself “a Hillary Clinton liberal Democrat.” Yet he’s called gun-control advocates “foolish liberals” and used a nonsensical argument to immunize presidents from oversight. Unchecked power is seldom, if ever, any friend of liberalism. I doubt anyone would have called King George’s lawyers liberals if they’d sued the rebellions colonies for breach of contract.

We'd rather play the victim than pursue the truth

Welcome to the Victim States of America.

Somewhere along the way, we stopped judging disputes based on reason and a search for the truth, and instead started basing our decisions on who can whine the loudest – and longest.

I suppose it’s easier that way. We don’t have to think; all we have to do is grease that squeaky wheel. Except, in this case, it just makes the wheel squeak louder.  

In yet another byproduct of our increasingly polarized culture, we prize loyalty to our “tribe” over a dedication to truth, and never has it been more apparent than in the current impeachment proceedings.

Democrats announced they would be pursuing impeachment before they’d read the whistleblower complaint against Donald Trump. Then, when it did come out, Republicans dismissed it without even appearing to consider how damning its contents were.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican, hit the nail on the head. “Democrats ought not to be using the word impeach before they have the whistleblower complaint or before they read any of the transcript. Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there’s no there there when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling there. The administration ought not to be attacking the whistleblower as some talking points suggest they plan to do.”

Sasse counseled “lots of deliberation” but also acknowledge that “this place is terrible at deliberation.”

How we got here

“This place” might have meant Congress, Washington or the nation at large, and it would have been equally accurate.

There are, of course, reasons why we’ve exchanged deliberation and reason for loyalty oaths and litmus tests.

First, as mentioned above, it’s easier. You don’t have to think. You just let your tribal leaders do the thinking for you. Of course, you shouldn’t be surprised if you find they’re picking your pocket and shackling your wrists in the meantime.

Second, those tribal leaders have succeeded in making “deliberation” look like gridlock. They’ve done this in part by stonewalling the release of information, so that the process becomes so drawn out and tedious that no one has the time or patience for it. (This is especially true in an era when people often work two or three jobs to make ends meet, and those who don’t have been indoctrinated in a culture of instant gratification.)

Third, they’ve raised the bar for independent judgment so high that it’s almost impossible to reach. Anything short of absolute proof can be debunked as “doctored” or “fake news.” The upshot of this is we stop trusting ourselves to make informed decisions, so we abdicate that power to (surprise!) those same tribal leaders who thirst for it the most.

Fourth, they deflect. Instead of defending themselves, they point the finger elsewhere and say, “See, he’s doing it, too, and it’s even worse!” (One has to wonder whether the folks who do this have ever heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right,” or whether they did hear it and simply don’t care.) We don’t have time to weigh charges and counter-charges, so we ignore the whole thing and retreat to our own camps and, yes, those tribal leaders.

Fifth, we rushed to judgment and cried wolf so many times that no one’s listening anymore. The media, chained to their instant-update news cycle, contributes to this. So do political spin doctors eager to take the first shot. When they’re wrong, they lose credibility. And they create a vicious circle: The lack of deliberation has made us even less inclined to engage in it.

Skepticism gives way to cynicism, to the extent that everything coming out of the “other” camp can be dismissed as propaganda, no matter how much evidence there might be to back it up. We don’t have time to sift through all that, weed out the facts from the spin, and make an informed decision when we don’t even know if we have all the information we need to do so.

Is it any wonder we’ve disengaged from politics? Who wants to spend all day listening to people whine – and deciding who’s the bully and who’s the victim?

When Supreme Court nominee Bret Kavanaugh was accused of sexual harassment, his most effective argument was a self-righteous tirade about how he was the one being harassed. Clarence Thomas had done the same thing under similar circumstances a couple of decades, when he characterized allegations against him as “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.”

The irony is that Thomas’ argument itself didn’t involve “thinking,” but was fallacious. He was attacking the messenger by questioning motive, rather than seeking to refute the allegation itself. He made it a question of identity – prejudice against “uppity blacks” – rather than reasoned argument. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone comment on the irony of that supposed defense, but maybe it’s because we’ve become so used to people playing the victim that we barely notice it anymore.

Thomas and Kavanaugh now sit on the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the land. Its members are supposed to think, not engage in ad hominem defenses. What does it say about our society as a whole when even members of our highest court seem to rely on such flawed excuses for reasoning?

Loyalty over truth

Some people are shocked that Republicans are defending Trump in the light of what appears to be very compelling evidence against him. But they shouldn’t be, because we long ago stopped judging people based on rational argument and substituted Trump’s own standard for “truth”: blind loyalty. Trump has used this standard for his entire career, and comparisons to mob culture are entirely accurate.

But Trump recognized something he has used to his advantage: That culture was spreading. The nation was catching up – or more accurately, falling back – to the kind of tribal culture he’d exploited on a smaller scale all his life as a real estate developer. Whatever his other shortcomings, he knew how to make it work for him. And as it came to dominate American culture as a whole, newcomers accustomed to operating by more conventional political rules found themselves out of their league.

Not only does Trump know how to create blind loyalty, he also recognizes it and is able to call it out in others. He then exposes it and discredits them for the very things he himself is doing – often more flagrantly. And because that loyalty has bound so many people to him, they refuse to call him out for his hypocrisy, no matter how blatant it might be. He really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

Nobody whines louder about being the victim than Trump, who laments “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT” in all caps and blames the media, the Democrats, and anyone else who dares to criticize him for all his woes. The only thing he seems to be more emphatic about is how great he (says he) is.

Who we’ve become

But this isn’t just – or even primarily – about Trump. He’s a symptom, not the condition. He could never have thrived if we hadn’t created a culture based on litmus tests and loyalty oaths long before he came along. Trump is Nixon redux, but in a time and culture far more vulnerable to Machiavellian bullshit. For this, we have only ourselves to blame. We began rushing to judgment long before Trump and others like him began using their cattle prods on us. We exchanged reason for outrage and humility for hubris. We ditched patriotism in favor of partisanship.

We’ve become so comfortable playing the victim and blaming others that it’s almost become second nature to us. We do it in government, in our personal lives, in our professional interactions. It’s become second nature.

But in exalting our own victimhood, we’ve abandoned what got us here: a spirit of determination that didn’t care what obstacles others put in our way. We didn’t waste time blaming the people who put them there; we tackled those obstacles head-on. We overcame them or died trying. It was what we used to call the American spirit. Flawed, yes. Cruel at times, to be certain. But we were not victims. Never victims.

Until now. Now we all want to do is play the victim – and in a sense, that’s what we are: victims of our own ignorance and stubborn refusal to face the truth.

And we’ll keep being victims until we’ve decided we’ve had enough.

Trump's undoing in Ukraine scandal: the word "though"

As I watched the coverage of the unfolding impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, I kept waiting for someone on cable news to mention one word.

They repeatedly referred to Trump’s use of the word “favor” in a summary of his conversation with the Ukrainian president, and that word is, indeed, very important. But they never mentioned a word that’s just as crucial in determining Trump’s intent.

The word right after “favor.”

“Though.”

In the exchange between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, as laid out in a summary released by the White House, the Ukrainian president says his country is grateful for U.S. financial aid because it wants to use the money to buy more defensive weapons.

That’s when Trump responds, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

The word “though” explicitly links what Trump’s about to say with what Zelensky said that preceded it. That’s its purpose - its raison d’etre. Otherwise, there would be no need for its presence in the sentence. Trump could have easily said, “I would like you to do us a favor.” Full stop. Indicating the beginning of a new and entirely separate thought.

But that’s not what he said.

He said, “though,” inextricably linking the “favor” (working with Rudy Giuliani to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden) to the military aid just referenced.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “though,” in this context is an adverb that means “despite the fact that.” In other words: Despite the fact that you’re preparing to buy weapons from us, we want you to do us a favor. The clear implication is that the purchase of weapons is not enough to close the deal – to make the two sides “even.”

When used as a conjunction, “though” means “even if (introducing a possibility)” or “however; but (introducing something opposed to or qualifying what has just been said. ‘her first name was Rose, though no one called her that.’” (again, quoting Oxford).

In the case of the Zelensky-Trump conversation summary, “though” serves as a de facto conjunction that indicates Trump’s request for the “favor” qualifies or is even opposed to what has just been said. It introduces the possibility that the request will not be granted – or would not have been granted – without the condition being met.

But whether it’s used as an adverb or a conjunction is, in fact, immaterial. In either case, it links the two thoughts, creating a dependency of Zelensky’s action upon Trump’s condition (the favor). Such dependency is the essence of a quid pro quo, which Oxford defines as “a favour or advantage granted in return for something.” Yes, it even uses the word favour (albeit with the British spelling)!

I’m surprised the pundits I watched missed this. Perhaps others picked up on it, or have figured it out since then. But the word “though” is the key to this entire puzzle.

Remember when Bill Clinton, when asked about the status of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, famously responded: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”? The distinction was deemed laughable.

But there’s no distinction at all in the Trump-Zelensky exchange. Whatever the tense, there’s a quid pro quo here. “Though” means “though.” Period. Full stop.