FEAR FUELS POPULIST RHETORIC

During the run-up tot the midterm elections, Donald Trump, in raucous stump speeches designed to energize his Republican base, made wildly inaccurate and baseless immigration claims, painting a doomsday scenario if Democrats were to take control of Congress. In rally after rally Trump exclaimed that: "Democrats are openly encouraging millions of illegal aliens to break our laws, violate our sovereignty, overrun our borders and destroy our nation in so many ways. We can't let that happen." He continued to assert that a caravan of a few thousand migrants moving north to the U.S. border consisted of MS-13 gang members, violent criminal and "unknown middle-easterners." Clams for which he never provided concrete evidence. (Ashley Parker et al., "Trump and Republicans settle on fear," The Washington post, Oct. 22, 2018).

While many of us in this country may have looked at his approach as a peculiar style Trump cultivated and applied during the 2016 election, assuming that it would work again this time around, the concept of spreading fear among electorates has become commonplace in an increasing number of countries dominated by populist, nativist and nationalist politicians. Populism has grown rapidly, its roots run deep, and analysts believe that the social and economic trends that have caused it will last long after the current crop of populist leaders has faded from the scene. Causes include: economic insecurity, social insecurity and political in effectiveness. Economic insecurity stems from income in equality, stagnation in average real in comes, and a drastically challenging labor market. Social insecurity comes from a perceived threat of immigration, generating cultural dislocation an loss of identity. And the feeling is that traditional political parties have become ineffective in coping with the dislocation fueled by globalization and technology.

Populism - a political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite, targets lower income, less educated segments of the population, and plays on their fears of becoming economically irrelevant. Nativism, which seeks to protect the interest of native born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants, stresses the fear of losing cultural identity. Nationalism, in its extreme form of chauvinism, jingoism or xenophobia, develops as a direct result from exploiting these fears, and become dangerous when manipulated by crafty politicians.

Examples of the use of "fear" in political rhetoric to attract a compliant following have become ubiquitous. Viktor Orban in Hungary, often referred to as the "Trump of Europe," spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on ad campaigns conjuring up an atmosphere of hatred and fear of immigrants, promising to protect his nation against foreign enemies that, he said, are seeking to undermine its identity, integrity and sovereignty. In Italy, Mateo Salvini, who graduated from the position of Federal Secretary of the populist, neo-nationalist, Northern League, to, after recent elections, became Interior Minister and Deputy Prime  Minister, has declare a public safety emergency (even though Italy's crime rate has dropped for years), cracked down on immigration by facilitating deportation and severely restricting pathways to legal status, and loosened gun laws , making it easier for people to injure or kill intruders. In Germany, the anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic, AFD - Alternative for Germany - Party has become the third largest party in parliament. While impressive for a relatively new organization, in states that formerly belonged to Communist East Germany, the party clearly dominates,  achieving this status by praying on a long-simmering sense of discrimination, injustice an anger among those who, dating back to unification, never felt integrated in the overall society. After the influx of more than one million, mostly Muslim, refugees, the party projected even greater economic decline and cultural marginalization.

In extreme cases, the politics of fear practiced by populist politicians can become cataclysmic. Case in point, Germany post World War One. While Germany was weighted down by debt and feelings of defeat, Adolph Hitler promised to restore the country to its former glory. He spoke from an ultranationalist platform and positioned himself as a voice of the people against he government elite which brokered the Versailles Treaty and left the country weak and in debt. "Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, it needs  leader, someone capable of restoring its character." (Tom Whipple, "From Hitler to Trump, Populist Leaders Profit form Fear," The Times, June 13, 2017.) We all know how that ended.

Globalization of the world economy, enhanced automation resulting from a destabilizing technological revolution which already eliminated many traditional occupations, and shifting demographic realities compounded by migration patterns fueled by conflict and despair elsewhere, threatening a cultural  mix natives no longer identify with, re causing distress among a growing segment of the population here and elsewhere. This extreme discomfort is real, and established governments have difficulty coping with a dynamically changing environment. Populist practitioners exploiting and exacerbating resulting fears may corral these disenfranchised groups to help themselves get elected. However, thus far they haven't shown an ability to solve underlying causes either. At best, they have succeeded in polarizing the political landscape, frequently making it more volatile and dangerous.

IN FLANDERS FIELD

Last Sunday, November 11, 2018, marked the 100th anniversary of the armistice signed in Compiegne, France, which went into effect November 11, 2018, marking the end of World War One, victory for the Allies and defeat for Germany. (The latter did not formally surrender.) This has been called "the Great War," by all accounts the most miserable and most brutal military conflict the western world has ever seen. Over 16 million military and 10 million civilian casualties were attributed to this "great" war. America mobilized 4 million combatants. Of these, 116,708 died, and another 204,000 were wounded.

The day before the anniversary our president was scheduled to honor the dead and lay a wreath at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Belleau, 50 miles north of Paris. In 1918 the U.S. Marine Corps and French military repelled German forces in this location. More than 1,800 Americans died here, and 2,300 are buried in this cemetery. Because it was raining, Donald Trump decided not to bother doing the honors, and stay in more comfortable surroundings in the French capital. Our insensitive, void of empathy, Commander-in-Chief may not have cared about the expressions of incredulity from attending dignitaries and on social media, but the response was quick, and overwhelmingly negative.

Nicolas Soames, one of Winston Churchill's grandsons, tweeted: "They died with their face to the foe, and that pathetic inadequate Donald Trump couldn't even defy the weather to pay his respect to the fallen." Former Secretary of State John Kerry remarked: "These veterans the president didn't bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow - and many died in trenches for the cause of freedom." On social media a cartoon depicting a medic comforting a dying soldier with the caption: "It's OK marine ... some day in the future and American President will travel great distances to honor your sacrifice. Unless of course it's raining," was shared several hundred thousand times. Trump's insensitive reaction to mildly inclement weather generated myriad emotional responses, none uplifting. In the meantime, 92 year old Queen Elizabeth of England did attend a ceremony, braving the rain, credibly displaying empathy and a sense of responsibility.

My wife and I were fortunate enough to be able to attend the Hawaii World War One Centennial Commemoration at the War Memorial Natatorium near Waikiki in Honolulu. Since I became aware of the disgraceful disrespect exhibited by someone we supposedly elected to lead us in honoring those who gave everything for our freedom, I experienced emotions that were difficult to shake, became teary-eyed, and ashamed for our country. The opportunity to participate in Hawaii's commemoration ceremony helped take the edge off.

Hawaii was still considered a territory during WW1. However, on a per capita basis, this territory mobilized more of its citizens to active military service than any state or territory in the nation. A total of 9,800 Hawaiians served in uniform, mostly in the army. The depth and diversity of Hawaii's contribution were staggering. Native Hawaiians, as well as immigrant Chinese, Japanese and Filipino men all stepped up to serve. The ceremony was solemn, at times emotional, and was well attended by veterans of all ranks and cultures, government officials from dozens of countries, Governor David Ige and his wife, Mayor Kirk Caldwell, and Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of our Pacific Fleet. It featured a vintage Hawaiian, inclusive, Polynesian, multi-cultural ceremony, framed appropriately and respectfully by expressions of the nation's gratitude for the service of its veterans.

One of the most emotional presentations, leaving few dry eyes, was a recitation by First Lady Dawn Ige of John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Field."  These words, written in May 1915, only ten months after the conflict began, remain powerful today:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we
lie in Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies
grow in Flanders fields.

Someone should read this to Donald Trump, since he famously does not read, and explain its content. Then again, he probably won't get it.

SOCIALISM - A SLUR OR SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD?

During his Sept. 25 speech before the U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump called for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela by way of referencing historically ingrained biases. In his speech, produced by his Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump proclaimed that: "Virtually everywhere Socialism or Communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption and decay. Socialism's thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion and oppression. All nations of the world should resist Socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone."

While this may be just a snippet from the president's rambling speech, it appears to have been designed for domestic consumption, as well as to incite an international response, while regurgitating "red scare" propaganda from the 1920's and 1950's, conflating Socialism with Communism, and exhibiting a misunderstanding of Socialism and its role in some highly developed western democracies.

To be clear, Socialism and Communism, although linked in some political theories, are not alike. Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Karl Marx saw Socialism as a historical phase of economic development superseding Capitalism. The term refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. The conception of that control has been interpreted in myriad ways. Over time multiple paths by which Capitalism can best be turned into Socialism have been identified.

Pure Socialism has only been seen very rarely, usually in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, also referred to as democratic Socialism, in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth. (Donald F. Busky, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger, July 20, 2000).

In 19th century Marxist theory, Socialism was considered a transitional state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism. In reality, this is not what happened. During the 1920s and 1930s, even Hitler separated Communism from Socialism as being on opposite ends of a continuum. Moreover, Socialism did not produce suffering, corruption, et. as depicted in the president's speech. Near the top of a list identifying the 10 most socialist countries in the world (Peerform, Dec. 6, 2012), we find allies like Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland. These countries tend to feature large welfare programs, including universal free healthcare. They focus on developing an egalitarian lifestyle. It is notable that Denmark only spends 11 percent of its GDP on healthcare. We spend 18 percent. A list of countries on the "Quality of Life Index" show that Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands rank #1, 2 and 3. The U.S. ranks #9. Moreover, Norway has the highest standard of living in Europe.

Venezuela, by the way, is not considered to be a socialist country. It has a mixed economy, a compromise between government ownership of the means of production and free market Capitalism. Over 70% of its economy is comprised of private industry. The country has less central government spending than European social democracies.

In a way, Mr. Trump's misguided verbal attack on Socialism may be understandable. Public speeches, even those before an international audience, are designed to inspire a domestic audience as well. Cynics may remind us that during this election year Socialism has cropped up as an issue. In recently concluded primaries nearly two dozen candidates ran under the socialist banner on platforms that included healthcare for all, a $15 per hour minimum wage, free tuition and income equality. Newcomer, and self identified Socialist, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's primary defeat of Rep. Joe Crowly, the fourth highest ranking House Democrat representing New York's 14th district, sent shockwaves through both parties. The "Democratic Socialists of America," a group formed in 1982, has experienced an enormous surge of interest since President Trump was elected. Since November 2016, its membership increased more than seven-fold, from 6,000 to 45,000.

While Socialism seems to be losing its historic stigma in this country, there does appear to be a significant generation gap in its insurgence. In a 2015 Harvard Institute poll, a plurality of voters under 30 supported Socialism, dropping to 15% among those over 65.

Democratic Party leaders worry that talking openly about being a Socialist will make it harder to defeat Republican opponents. After all, the word "Socialist" has long been wielded by conservatives as a slur, associated with bad things in history.

Perhaps it would help to understand what we really are talking about.

THE 25TH AMENDMENT UNDERSCORES DYNAMIC STABILITY OF OUR CONSTITUTION

On September 5th, during the same week that Robert Woodward's book "Fear: Trump in the White House" was being promoted, The New York Times published an anonymous opinion piece entitled: " I Am Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Administration." The essay was attributed to a "senior official working for the Trump administration," criticize Trump, and stated that many members of the administration deliberately disobeyed or ignored suggestions and orders for the good of the country. The author wrote: "The root of the problem is the President's amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Fairly common-place criticism frequently uttered by the opposition to the current administration. However, what seemed more intriguing was the assertion that some cabinet members during the early days of the administration discussed invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to our Constitution in order to remove the President from power.

Predictably, politicians on all sides expressed their opinions about their relative desire to or the feasibility of using this constitutional tool to unseat our current President. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, told CNN: "If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, they should invoke the 25th Amendment. They can't have it both ways. Either they think the President is not capable of doing his job, in which case they follow the rules in the Constitution, or they feel that the President is capable of doing his job, in which case they follow what the President tells them to do." The Federalist's political writer David Harsanyi responded to the op-ed by opining: "The notion that the bureaucratic class in Washington should dictate which policies presidents are allowed to advocate simply by ignoring their wishes sounds a lot like a soft coup than a constitutionally principled resistance." Meanwhile, the White House appeared to be more concerned with uncovering the identity of the author than in discussing the essay's content. With all of this going on, the casual observer might justifiable ask: What exactly is the 25th Amendment to our Constitution, and how might it apply to the perceived situation at hand?

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was proposed in Congress during the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and was intended to clarify the succession process for the President or Vice President in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation. The amendment was sent to the states on July 6, 1965, and was adopted February 10, 1967. The amendment consists of 4 sections. The first three cover how succession is to be handled . This issue was left unclear and imprecise in the original Constitution. Until the adoption of the 25th Amendment succession of a President stipulated that the Vice President would take over as "Acting President" until the elected President could resume his (or her) duties, or until a new President was elected. If neither President or Vice President could do the President's job, Congress would decide who takes over. The first three sections clarify and formalize this process.

The critical section enumerated in the anonymous op-ed is section 4. It states: "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers of the office as Acting President." The President can subsequently transmit  written declaration that no inability exists, and resume powers and duties. Within four days the VP et al can restate their earlier transmissions, after which Congress would need to agree by a 2/3 vote. When it does, the VP will continue a Acting President.

Section 4 of the Amendment is both he most interesting and most difficult section to apply. It covers a case of inability when the President cannot or refuses to declare his own inability. Mid 20th century lawmakers anticipated a President whose instability might amount to disability. Multiple times during our history situations developed that could have fir the parameters of this section . James Garfield was bedridden after he was shot, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in October of 1919, which was effectively hidden from the public, Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955 and a stroke in 1957, yet no attempt was made to remove any of them from office. In fact, section 4 has never been used. It was contemplated  twice after the 1981 assassinated attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Given the sentiment displayed in the September 5 op-ed it should be noted that it was clear from the debates at the time of adoption and ratification that "unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment and laziness do not constitute an "inability"  within the meaning of the amendment." (Jon Meacham, "Could the 25th Amendment be Trump's Downfall," Time , Jan 26, 2018.)

For all the hype and political grandstanding, the consensus seems to be that since the invocation of section 4 of the 25th Amendment requires buy-in from the Vice President, the majority of Trump appointed cabinet members, and 2/3 of the Republican controlled Congress, the entire concept is  a non starter. Ultimately, we should also recognize that our Constitution incorporates , what I would call,  dynamic stability. It allows us potential remedies for perceived grievances, but it won't be manipulated by political whim. Forcibly removing a President is a destabilizing event. Neither impeachment, nor invoking the 25thAmendment involve processes that can easily accomplish the intended result. Either might be used to release political steam. However, because of built in safeguards, neither has ever been used successfully. Deliberately or not, our Founders implied that the voting booth remains the  most secure democratic vehicle to affect desired change.

THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS SHOULD NOT RESEMBLE GROWING MUSHROOMS

In 1787 our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in order to create a government that would be ruled by the people instead of by them. A cornerstone of this effort was the expressed need for systemic transparency and the unique privilege and responsibility of every citizen to be informed and engaged. The First Amendment to our Constitution intended to help accomplish this. In addition to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, this amendment features "freedom of the press," which mean that citizens are allowed to circulate opinions in print without government censorship. Thomas Jefferson characteristically opined: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

In 1766, twenty-five years before the passage of our First Amendment, the Swedish parliament became the first to pass a: "Freedom of the Press Act," abolishing the Swedish government's role as a censor of printed matter, and allowing official actions of the government to be made public. The concept of press freedom did not really become an issue until the 15th century when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, enabling the mass production of books, newspapers, and other publications, which facilitated the spread of ideas faster an farther than ever before. Since some of these ideas tended to challenge official power structures, countless political and religious authorities actively suppressed publications they deemed subversive. (Britannica. com.) In the ensuing tug of war between those who insisted on controlling content and context of disseminated information, and those arguing that a free press was indispensable for people to stay informed an participate in a democracy, its influence has had much to do with the ultimate system of government countries adopted.

While autocrats favor controlling the flow and interpretation of information, democratic societies continue to stand behind freedom of the press, be it sometimes uncomfortably. They argue that: "The transparency that journalism brings to events makes government work better, decreases the risk of corruption, and ultimately makes our nation safer." (Linda A. Klein, "A free press is necessary for a strong democracy," ABA Journal, May 2017." Thy ideologically agree with Jefferson that: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost."

While the invention of the printing press led to a revolutionary increase in the spread of ideas, the growth of social media has prompted a vastly more sweeping growth of information technology and dissemination. Today unfiltered thoughts and ideas can be communicated to millions of recipients within minutes. Autocratic systems are finding ways of controlling flow, an subverting content. In democratic systems this is legally more difficult. Where desired, unfavorable press is often attacked by belittling its content, and identifying its substance as "fake news," as, supposedly, contrasted with official news.

Fake news, or deliberate misinformation, has been around for centuries. It is often indistinguishable from propaganda, as openly used by the Nazis, Communists and Fascists under the guise of "public enlightenment." More recently our own governmen5 has routinely confronted much of the nation's press with accusations of creating "fake news" as well, particularly when the disseminated information does not favor our president. The intent appears to be to undermine the veracity of criticism of the administration's policies and proposals, to substitute and obscure verifiable facts, and replace them with alternative facts.

To be fair, many residents have had contentious a contentious relationship with the press. Such are the trappings of a healthy democracy. However, the current administration has elevated its distaste for the legitimate press by being blatantly vitriolic. It regressed from characterizing unfavorable press as "fake news" to demonizing unfriendly media as the "enemy of the people," a term introduced by Joseph Stalin almost a century ago for the purpose of annihilating individuals who disagreed with him. Donald Trump, at his rallies, has made a point of identifying journalists as "horrible, horrendous people." His objective has clearly been to silence unfavorable ideas and conceal inconvenient reporting.

Trump's barrage of media attacks has had a measurable effect on the Republican Party. By the end of last year, just fourteen percent of Republicans said they still trusted the media. (John Cassidy, "How to counter Donald Trump's War on the Media," The New Yorker, August 3, 208.) Trump's announcement: "Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news... what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening," is shockingly reflective of a key point made by George Orwell in "1984:" "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

To quote Thomas Jefferson again: "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know, nor notice, its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." (1792).

Any self-respecting flourishing democracy embraces freedom of the press. In fact, it can't exist without it. Authoritarian regimes know that their survival depends on operating without the eyes and ears of the press upon them. In trying to undermine news coverage, President Trump is attempting to enjoy the same luxury. (John Diaz, SF Chronicle, July 29, 2018). As the sociologist DaShanne Stokes has pointed out: "Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness."

Our democracy will not survive or grow by feeding people B.S. and keeping them in the dark. That's how you grow mushrooms.

WILL TRUMP BE COMPLICIT IN DISMANTLING NATO?

In April of 1949 the United States and 11 Western European countries signed an agreement establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. The most significant clause in this treaty was "Article 5," in which signatories agreed that "an armed attack against one or more of them.... shall be considered an attack against them all." Following such an attack each ally would take "such action as it (considered) necessary, including the use of armed force". In retaliation, in 1955, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states formed the Warsaw Pact. Aside from the USSR, this group included Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. Fast forward 70 plus year, after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet empire, all of these former satellite states are now part of NATO, a significant thorn in the side of Russia's current autocratic leader Vladimir Putin.

Putin, a foreign intelligence Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB for 16 years, has effectively run the Russian government ever since President Boris Yeltsin appointed him on August 9, 1999. He continues to articulate his disenchantment with Russia's diminishing strategic power and influence vis-à-vis NATO and the European Union, and he has been vocal about what he considers to be an existential threat to his country from these two organizations. He is dedicated to weakening the EU and undermining the NATO military alliance to extend his power and potentially recover a hegemonic role for Russia. In his mind the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The fact that 10 formerly Communist states joined the EU rubbed additional salt into Russian wounds. As a former KGB puppet master Putin initiated subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on his adversaries.

It should be understood that nothing significant emerging from Russia happens without Putin's consent. In 2007, Estonia, which with six other Eastern European nations joined NATO in 2004, suffered a crippling cyber attack, essentially shutting down the entire country, solely because, contrary to explicit warnings emanating from Moscow, it removed a Soviet WWII memorial from its capital's downtown. In 2008, after Georgia expressed an interest in joining NATO, Russia invaded its provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ultimately declaring them independent states, and regrouping them under the Russian umbrella. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Later that year, the 53rd Anti Aircraft Rocket Brigade of the Russian Federation shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over rebel territory in Ukraine, killing all 298 on board. In 2016 Russia plotted to overthrow Montenegro's government and assassinate its Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, to sabotage that country's plan to join NATO, something they did a year later anyway. That same year, allegedly with support of the Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB, and the GRU, the military intelligence service, Russia effectively meddled in the British "Brexit" referendum, supporting the "leave" campaign headed up by Nigel Farrage. Subsequent Russian interference in the U.S. and French elections has also been well established. In the meantime dozens of Putin's critics died violently or disappeared altogether. Boris Nemtsov - shot in the back in front of the Kremlin, Alexander Litvinenko - poisoned with Polonium 210, and Sergei Magnitsky - killed in prison, are cases in point. In short, Vladimir Putin will stop at nothing to accomplish his objectives. He is the consummate professional KGB officer, accomplished puppet master, a merciless killer, and no friend of the West.

President Trump's open skepticism of NATO, its continued relevance, and the viability of "Article 5" of its charter, mouthing Russia's talking points, is playing into Putin's hands. During an interview on Fox News Trump explicitly questioned why an American would have to defend a small country like Montenegro, which is more than 5,000 miles away. Qualifying and conditioning the notion of NATO's defense guarantee is a major step towards abandoning it. The only time in history when the Article 5 guarantee was invoked was after 9/11. Our allies sent tens of thousands of troops to fight alongside Americans in Afghanistan, spent tens of billions of dollars, and suffered more than 1,000 casualties in defense of an ally. Georgia and Ukraine were invaded with impunity, without eliciting military retaliation, because they did not belong to the NATO alliance.

After Trump's private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, and subsequent to his submissive participation in their press conference, patriots on both sides of the political aisle, and most of our allies who stood by us for 70 plus years, questioned U.S. bias and commitment after the president publicly challenged the veracity of his own intelligence experts while chastising NATO and branding the EU a "foe," again effectively doing Putin's bidding. Former CIA director and career intelligence officer John Brennan tweeted that Trump's performance in Helsinki "rises to and exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Nothing short of treasonous," while calling his comments "imbecilic, wholly in the pocket of Putin." Rumor has it that one of the items the two leaders agreed to is that Georgia and Ukraine  will never be allowed to join NATO. Not entirely unexpectedly, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that the summit results were "better than super," while our own senior staff appeared reticent about discussing the meeting's content at all.

By tweeting that: "Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of US foolishness and stupidity, and now the Rigged Witch Hunt," (sic), Donald Trump either reflects ignorance, is gullible, or somehow beholden to the Russian dictator. As Charles de Gaulle, and numerous others following him, remarked: "No nation has friends, only interests." If Trump insists on inviting Putin to DC this fall, we are essentially bringing the KGB into the White House, the inner sanctum of our democracy. In some sense we are encountering a scene from a play detailing the onset of our revolution. The composite intelligence services play Paul Revere, screaming: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming." Unfortunately, someone also needs to play the role of Benedict Arnold.....

ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE ABYSS

Donald Trump is frustrated, suffering from a severe dose of "relative deprivation," the conscious experience of a negative discrepancy between his expectations and political reality. Trump is frustrated in part because he has been unable to secure funding for his signature campaign issue of building a wall along the length of our southern border. Mexico won't pay for it, and Congress has not been able to secure the votes to do so either. Given this reality, it is not difficult to imagine that Mr. Trump, with assistance of his senior advisor Stephen Miller, a former aide to then Senator Jeff Sessions, and well known for echoing white supremacist and anti-immigrant viewpoints, would conjure up a strategy intended to create a hostage situation designed to shame Democrats into helping move a Republican backed immigration measure across the line in Congress.

On April 6 Trump issued a memorandum ending "catch and release" at the border, a practice which releases illegal immigrants from detention while they wait for their immigration court hearing. He directed Homeland Security, the Justice and Defense departments to come up with measures they would be able to take to end this practice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions subsequently ordered federal prosecutors to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy. A month later he clarified what he really meant: "If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border." Six week later 2,300 plus kids had been separated from their parents, interred into wire cages, forced to sleep on concrete floors, housed in warehouses and internment camps reminiscent of conditions that existed in the camps Japanese-Americans were forced into during World War II. To avoid transparency, the press and elected representatives were denied access to these hastily erected internment facilities.

As the reality of this process became clear, its consequences quickly generated overwhelming critique from every corner of the country, and from the world at large. The 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council, which began its latest session on June 18 with a broadside against Mr. Trump's immigration policy by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, called the policy of separating children from parents crossing the southern border illegal and unconscionable. The next day the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the council.

Instead of immigration reform, kids in cages, considered child abuse by many, became the focus for politicians of both parties, people from all faiths from the Vatican on down, and from all First Ladies still living. While acting like ventriloquist dummies, A.G. Jeff Sessions, and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, remained unapologetic in their support of Trump's policy. Sessions justified his decision to separate families by citing a biblical admonishment from Apostle Paul in Romans 13 to "obey the law of the government, because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." In response, more than 600 clergy and lay members of the United Methodist Church, to which Sessions belongs, signed a letter opposing his viewpoint. In the mean time Trump doubled and tripled down on this policy, blaming Democrats for the problem. "They don't care about crime, and want illegal immigrants to pour into and infest our country, like M.S. - 13" [sic].

Trump, Sessions, Nielsen and other apologists continued their bombastic lies as international pressure mounted. Comparisons to Nazi-Germany's forcible removal of 400,000 children from their parents, and Putin's goons arresting kids first at anti-Putin rallies, began to surface regularly. Democratic leaders lamented that taking children from their parents was a form of state terror, and that hostage taking was one of the most effective tools of terror most of us never thought we would see an American administration implement. Trump finally appeared to back down and signed a Presidential Executive Order nominally halting the practice, a political document entirely unnecessary and still lacking clarification and follow-through. A day later the president followed up by featuring an event in the White House rose garden callously showing off families who were "permanently separated" from their children killed by illegal aliens. A few days later he proposed to deport asylum seekers immediately after crossing the border without extending to them their legal right to due process.

None of this should have surprised us. Donald Trump feels the need to project strength without restraint. He routinely indicates that he prefers "strong" autocratic leaders over our "meek, dishonest and weak" traditional democratic allies. His new-found friend Kim Jong Un, China's Xi Jinping, Egypt's Fatah al-Sissi, Turkish Erdogan, Russia's Putin and others appear to have more what our president looks for in a leader. Not surprisingly, none of these criticized him about his stance on immigration. While Trump refers to illegal immigrants as vermin infesting our country, they routinely and openly dehumanize migrants and other irritants as well. In the president's mind compassion and empathy are signs of weakness. He won't acknowledge that those are character traits that actually make us human. Given the chance, it would not be much of a stretch to imagine him rubbing shoulders with Hitler and Mussolini.

His relentless attacks on the free press, his disregard and disrespect for our laws and democratic institutions, even suggesting that he is above the law and could pardon himself, unilateral withdrawal from international agreements, and his perpetual lies leading up to and surrounding this disgraceful episode, makes us wonder how close we have come to the end of rules based democratic government in our country. London's King's College instructor Angelos Chryssogelos, in a May 31, 2018 Time magazine article, warned: "Populism can indeed become a threat to democracy if populists in power undermine liberal institutions and enable illiberal democracy that can, with time, degenerate into outright electoral autocracy."

Mussolini was known for having said that "if you consolidate power by plucking a chicken one feather at a time, people won't notice." Trump is considerably less subtle, he plucks them out by the fistful. We need to pay attention. The abyss lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.

A LIBERATION REMEMBERED

On May 5, The Netherlands, the country in which I grew up, commemorated the 72nd anniversary of liberation from the brutal occupation by Nazi Germany during World War II. If my parents were still alive today, they would almost certainly have expressed relief, but most likely have declined to celebrate that moment in history. After all, liberation from intense war-time occupation differs fundamentally from gaining independence from colonial subjugation. Too many horrible, life-changing, memories clouded the experience removing the Nazi occupation force must have generated.

The Netherlands' involvement in WWII began when Nazi Germany invaded the country on May 10, 1940. Although it had attempted to remain neutral, Hitler ordered its invasion anyway. After only four days of intense fighting between an ill-equipped Dutch military and an overwhelming German force assembled to execute its "blitz Krieg," and after the May 4 bombing of Rotterdam, the Dutch army surrendered. During this "Rotterdam blitz," 800-900 Dutch civilians were killed, and 25,000 houses were destroyed. The royal family initially evacuated to London, and subsequently moved to Canada for the duration of the war. In a country with, at the time, had a population of less than 9 million people, 198,000 civilians were killed and 7,900 military lost their lives during this war. In addition, 102,000 Jewish citizens were exterminated.

Holland's total population included 140,000 Jewish citizens, 70 percent of which lost their lives in extermination camps throughout the five-year period. This was a much higher percentage than what was experienced in comparable countries like Belgium or France. The Nazis did not begin to deport the Dutch Jews until early 1941. When they did begin this process the Dutch protested by going on strike. This response was unique in Nazi occupied Europe, but accomplished little, and all its leaders were summarily executed. The Germans and their Dutch collaborators gradually intensified anti-Semitic activity. For a price, members of the "Henneicke Column" identified as "Joden Jagers" (Jew huners) captured around 8,000 to 9,000 of the Jews that were in hiding, and delivered them to the German occupiers for deportation to the camps.

Atrocities applied to the civilian population were too numerous to detail. One significant illustration of the monstrous Nazi mindset was a series of events identified as the "Putten raid." Putten, at the time, was a small village in the center of the country. Following a resistance attack on a Wehrmacht vehicle, the Nazis, on October 1, 1944, burned 100 houses and removed 601 men, almost the entire male population of the village, and deported them to various concentration camps. Only 48 of these returned at the end of the war.

I was born four months before the end of the war, entirely unaware of what was going on around me. Before I could read, my mother was my main source of information about the horrors Dutch civilians endured during these fateful five years. My dad remained stoic, and remained less interested in discussing all that had happened, perhaps still shell shocked, or feeling guilty that he had not prevented all his family had experienced.

On one afternoon in 1942 he returned from a bad day at work to find out that his father, a butcher, had been arrested for hiding resistance fighters and feeding Jews. The Nazis picked him up without notice, sentenced him to 2.5 years of slave labor, sent him to the Gestapo prison "Ahlem" in Hannover, and subsequently imprisoned him in the re-education camp "Lahde." My family never saw him again. Upon being led away, my grandfather told his wife that he would write with ink if everything was O.K., and in pencil if it was not. All correspondence reaching Holland was in pencil. Although he completed his sentence in late 1944, and even though my family submitted a sizable ransom, the Nazis refused to release him. Every day during the last few months of the war, camp Lahde executed 10 or more prisoners on a scaffold erected for that purpose. My grandfather was killed March 11, 1945.

With exception of collaborators, nobody was ever safe. Periodically the Nazis would hold razias designed to arrest young men for work programs in Germany. On those occasions my dad would hide in between a double wall to avert detection. The Germans, to ensure they were not missing anyone, would use bayonets to puncture those walls, fortunately always missing their mark.

When in September of 1944 the allied advance was halted near Arnhem, the provinces located north of the Rhine were forced to endure continued Nazi domination and a severe winter with little or no food. Famine became especially intense in areas and cities outside of agricultural areas. People were forced to scrounge for food, which included rodents, flower bulbs, and anything ingestible found on garbage dumps. More than 20,000 people died of hunger and deprivation that winter.

So, May 5 is still commemorated with a sense of relief, but hardly celebrated. Memories are too painful. However, these anniversaries remain important, especially for generations with no direct connection, to show what can happen when fascism is allowed to proliferate, especially now that its ugly head is again rearing up all over the globe.

IMPEACH TRUMP? NOT SO FAST!

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed the massive $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill on March 23 while pointedly suggesting that he would never sign legislation like that one again. In response, conservative political commentator Ann Coulter, author of "In Trump We Trust," mocked the president by tweeting: "Yes, because you'll be impeached."

Whether conceptually, hypothetically, ideologically or reluctantly, impeachment has been on the lips and in the minds of many political activists, sometimes dating back to before Donald Trump's inauguration. As the political dialogue became more contentious, this discussion grew more intense, not just on the political left, but, be it for different reasons, among many Republican operatives as well. When the president appeared to be toying with the idea that he could somehow fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, representatives from both sides of the congressional aisle warned that such a move could precipitate a constitutional crisis and potentially escalate political demands to start the impeachment process. To date as many as 60 House Democrats have signed on to a request to begin debating impeachment, a step opposed by the party's leadership as premature and counterproductive. A resolution voted on in December 2017 failed by a 58-364 margin. Nevertheless, Representative Maxine Waters, Al Green and Brad Sherman continue to push the issue, while billionaire donor Tom Steyer has embarked on a national "Need to Impeach" campaign, attending 30 town hall meetings in an attempt to get his point across.

Before we read too much into this incessant banter, we ought to take a look at what we are really talking about. Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar specializing in constitutional law, in "Impeachment American Style," published in The New Yorker of Sept. 20, 2017, gives us a historical perspective. The American colonies imported the concept from England, where Edmund Burke called it the "great guardian of the purity of the Constitution." When, in the summer of 1787, the Constitutional Convention accepted the idea of a powerful president, its delegates insisted on including the impeachment mechanism. In fact, the argument was made that, without he impeachment clause, the Constitution would never be ratified. Benjamin Franklin apparently observed that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination, and suggested that a procedural mechanism for legal removal - impeachment - would be preferable. (Josh Chafetz, "Impeachment and Assassination," Minnesota Law Review, June, 2011).

To be clear, impeachment refers to the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. It is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. It is NOT removal from office. To begin the process, the president has to be charged with treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives, on the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, votes on one or more articles of impeachment. If at least one of these gets a majority vote, the president is impeached, and the proceeding moves to the Senate. Overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Senate holds a trial. A team of lawmakers from the House play the role of prosecutors, the president has defense lawyers, and the Senate serves as the Jury. If at least two-thirds of the senators find the president guilty, he is removed, and the vice president takes over as president.

Impeachment is a political act. There are no standard rules. The party in power traditionally decides how to interpret the charges and what the rules for the trial will be. Throughout our history only Andrew Johnson (1868) and Bill Clinton (1998) were successfully impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate. However, in Johnson's case the Senate vote was 35-19 in favor of removal - one vote shy of the requisite two-thirds majority. President Nixon (1974) resigned before the impeachment resolution could be voted on by the House.

With mid-term elections coming up at he end of the year, both Republicans and Democrats grapple with the impeachment prospect. When Ann Coulter predicted that the president would be impeached, she really warned Republicans that if a Democratic "blue wave" were to materialize, Donald Trump would run the risk of being impeached. Republican leaders are reportedly discussing framing their election campaign around the threat of impeachment, as a motivational tool for voter turnout. Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager, suggested that "the threat of impeachment is something that unifies everybody in the party, even if you're not a Trump supporter." Democrats, on the other hand, fear that the focus on impeachment may be a political trap that would distract from their core message, and boomerang them in November. According to Obama's former chief strategist, David Axelrod: "If impeachment becomes a political tool instead of the end result of a credible investigation, you are as guilty as Trump, in  some ways, of taking a hammer blow to institutions." (Charles Pierce, "Impeachment is the Republicans' Latest Boogeyman for the 2018 Elections," Esquire, April 9, 2018).

While both the left and the right appear poised to use impeachment as a wedge issue or a rallying cry, history tells us that the actual political process is thorough, slow, and tends to protect the incumbent. It rarely comes close to its intended conclusion.

"AMERICA FIRST" - ACTIONABLE POLICY OR ILL-INFORMED IMPULSE?

During his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Donald Trump elicited significant pushback and raised many eyebrows when he proclaimed that: "From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be 'America First.' " Analysts wondered out loud if he intended to roll out a new period of isolationism, non-interventionism or economic nationalism. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote that Trump's inaugural "radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II." Instead of exercising global leadership, the United States was now opting for "insularity and smallness." Conservative journalist Bill Kristol, founder and Editor-at Large of the Weekly Standard, lamented: "I'll be embarrassedly old fashioned here: it is profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim 'America First.' "

It is questionable whether President Trump really understood what he proclaimed on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol that afternoon. According to a corroborated report published by the Wall Street Journal, his speech was written by chief strategist Steve Bannon and senior advisor Stephen Miller, both of whom have long been associated with Breitbart and the white supremacist movement. They knew very well that "America First" historically stood for the "America First Committee," which was founded at Yale Law School in 1940. It was the foremost non-interventionist pressure group against American entry into WWII, and was characterized by anti-Semitic and pro-Fascist rhetoric. Membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters, and counted people like Charles Lindbergh, Walt Disney and Frank Lloyd Wright among its most prominent members. It was dissolved on December 10, 1941, three days after the attack on Pearl Harbor had brought the war to America. Professor Eric Rauchway of the history department at U.C. Davis summarized the "America First"  concept as: A white America, living behind higher walls and screens, lashing out to prove its strength and then retreating again - not a government suspiciously tolerant of foreign threats." (Eric Rauchway, "President Trump's 'America First' slogan was popularized by Nazi sympathizers," Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2017.)

Many who considered the use of this slogan, including, I suspect, Trump himself, may have understood it to refer to some measure of isolationism, a policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy self reliant. In its purest form, isolationism is a nation's total retreat from the world stage, something we attempted at various time throughout our history, dating back to the Founders. Our Founding Fathers saw America's geographical separation from Europe as an ideal opportunity to cultivate the new nation in solitude. George Washington suggested that: "Our detached and distant situation [from Europe] invites and enables us to pursue a different course. Thomas Jefferson warned against "entangling alliances." ("A brief history of American isolationism," The Week, June 5, 2016.)

Following the explosion of the battleship USS Maine in the harbor of Havana on February 15, 1898, which killed 260 U.S. sailors, President McKinley ended isolationism by declaring war on Spain. It was revived after the U.S. suffered 116,516 deaths and 320,000 sick and wounded during WWI. Our Senate voted 49-35 against joining The League of Nations, the international organization, substantially conceived by President Woodrow Wilson after the end of WWI to provide a forum for resolving international disputes, and pursued economic issues throughout the 1930's, ignoring the ascend of militaristic dictatorships in Europe and Japan. When war broke out with the invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 and Poland in 1939, the isolationist Congress kept us out, and the war gave rise to the previously discussed "America First Committee."

Non-interventionism and isolationism, even though distinct, are frequently conceptually confused, while economic nationalism, or protectionism, is often seen as a subset of isolationism. Mr. Trump's expressed proclivity to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel, under the guise of national security and "America First," seems to underscore his confusion as well. The last time this country pursued a significant protectionist policy was during the Hoover administration when the president signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, with tariffs on over 20,000 goods, which exacerbated the Great Depression, and led to retaliatory actions by other nations.

The jury is still out on Trump's protectionist inclinations - the Washington Post calls him a "novice protectionist" - however, it would be a stretch, and it would give the administration too much credit, to connect the president's I augural proclamation to significant policy prescriptions. " Ordering punitive strikes against a regime that murders its own citizens while posing no threat to the United States, as Trump did it Syria, is not isolationism." Nor is it non-interventionism. His intent to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, his threats against North Korea, and his views on the viability of NATO do  not suggest disengagement. (Andrew Bacevich, "Saving 'America First,' What Responsible Nationalism Looks Like," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct, 2017). "Policy" refers to a set of ideas or plans that is used as  basis for making decisions. Mr. Trump displays a chaotic mindset, unfocused on recognizable policy principles, which has already negatively affected our global leadership position. Given the administration's behavior during the past 14 months, "America First" appears to simply have been an ill-informed impulse, a slogan co-opted by speech writers expressing their personal political agenda.

ANTI SEMITISM PROLIFERATES AS NATIVISM FLOURISHES

A few months ago I reread Leon Uris' harrowing tale "Mila 18," a historical
novel set in German occupied Warsaw, Poland, before and during World War II. This impressive work covered the Nazi Occupation of Poland, and the atrocity of systematically dehumanizing and eliminating the Jewish population  of Poland.
The story concentrates  on Jewish resistance fighters  in the Warsaw ghetto, and, in graphic detail, describes the gradual decimation  of a cultural force which once encompassed the largest concentration of Jews in Europe. Prior to the Holocaust, Poland boasted 3.3. million Polish Jews - about 10%  of the population. During World War II 20% of the Polish population perished - half of them were 3 million Polish Jews. Many were killed during the ghetto uprising and ongoing pogroms executed by Nazis and Polish collaborators. (Some historians estimated that as many as 200,000 Polish Jews were killed by fellow Poles.) Most were murdered in any of the 6 German extermination camps the Nazis built in Poland. These included the notorious Auschwitz, Birkenau an Treblinka facilities designed and built exclusively to kill prisoners on a massive scale immediately upon arrival. Slightly more than 300,000 Polish Jew survived the war. Most of these fled the country afterwards, many to Israel. Today the Jewish community in Poland has shrunk to 10,000.

Given this horrific history, which effectively continued during the immediate post WWII Soviet occupation, and  which, to be fair, also affected much of the gentile population, one would expect the remaining population to minimize its expressions of intolerance and bias. As in several other affected countries, Nazi ideologies and symbols did become illegal. However, recently, after newly arisen right-wing populist and nativist parties began filling the political void created by the growing unpopularity of traditional, mostly centrist, organizations, the strength of these regulations diminished. In Poland this trend started with the arrival of the "Law and Justice Party," found in 2001, and gaining political dominance in 2005. Led by Jaroslaw Kaczynski and supported by President Andrzej Duda , "Law an Justice," claiming absolute majorities in the Polish Parliament, seized control of public media and the courts, and gradually began assuming authoritarian rule. Fueled by Europe's migration crisis and economic problems, and endorsed by growing numbers of the, often young, unemployed  or underemployed of an increasingly disaffected segment of the population. Like what happened in much of Europe, Poland's traditional, moderating, center-left labor parties lost public supports and influence. Many of its positions were co-opted and tweaked by the dominant party. The result has been that we now begin to see  "Charleston-like" white supremacist led marches and demonstrations in support of the current government, ostensibly showing anti-immigrant, and increasingly anti-Semitic content. While the initial focus of this nativist noise centered on hatred of mostly Muslim migrants, an expression of Islamophobia, anti-Semitic Muslim migrants paradoxically, in an ideological sense, joined forces with anti-Jewish nativist groups, thereby intensifying the impact on the Jewish population. To Polish youth groups clamoring for a "return" to a white-Catholic Poland, this incongruity has grown into an uncomfortable marriage of convenience, ultimately making Jews susceptible to attacks from an even larger segment of the population.

Anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland and other European countries gradually proliferated. As the European migration crisis escalated, right-wing nativist movements grew in popularity and influence, facilitating sympathetic governments' ability to enact policies supporting their political slant. Poland's "Law and Justice Party" recently adopted a new anti-defamation law, which makes it a crime for anyone , in any part of the world, to accuse the "Polish nation" of complicity in Nazi war crimes. In other words, it asserted that, by law, Poland was not complicit in the Holocaust, a denial which had no impact on popular attitudes towards its Jewish population. A study produced by the University of Warsaw reported a sharp increase in negative attitudes and acceptance of hate speech towards Jews. Approximately 56% of people interviewed said they di not want a Jewish person in their family, 32% did not want Jewish neighbors, and 24% of younger Poles admitted to making anti-Semitic remarks.

In Germany where, only four years after its founding, the anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, "Alternative for Germany" (AFD) party, recently became the third largest political party in parliament, 62% of Jewish survey respondents reported that they experienced anti-Semitism in their everyday life. A Berlin Imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, reportedly called on Allah to "destroy the Zionist Jews - count them and kill them all," and a segment of AFD party members is actively pushing to have Nazi soldiers remembered as patriots. (Austin Davis, "Germany's rising anti-Semitism haunts Jews," USA Today, Dec. 22, 2017). In France, which houses 475,000 Jews and around 5 million, pro-Palestinian, Muslims, synagogues are being attacked, kosher supermarkets smashed and looted, and crowds are chanting "death to Jews,' and "slit Jews throats." (Marie Brenner, "The troubling question in the Jewish community: Is it time to leave?" Vanity Fair, July 8, 2015). In Italy racist and anti-Semitic incidents increased more than ten-fold between 2012 and 2016. This activity played an unprecedented role in its most recent lection during which hard-right populists won better than 50% of the vote.

Last year, in the U.S., the Anti-Defamation League reported a 57% surge in anti-Semitic incidents, totaling 1,986, up from 1,267 in 2016. his was the single largest one year spike since 1979. according to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt "this alarming increase appears to be fueled by emboldened far-right  extremists, as well as the divisive state of our national discourse." According to Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Executive Vice President of the New York Board of Rabbis: "It is not a  big deal to hate Jews. The first group that gets attacked is the Jews."

As far-right nativists and populists increasingly assume political control in country after country, as they already have in Poland, Hungary, Austria, and potentially in Germany and Italy, anti-Semitic rhetoric is bound to proliferate. Eric Goldstein, CEO of the UJA Federation of New York, in an interview with The Times o Israel, sent us a succinct warning: "The world is witnessing an alarming rise in acts of anti-Semitism, and we must do all we can to respond to this growing threat. History has shown us the ramifications of silence." We all need to remember what happened when another populist movement gradually replaced the Weimar Republic in Germany.

Yes, it can happen again!

ANOTHER 17 CHILDREN MASSACRED - WHO WILL BE NEXT?

The headlines have become commonplace, and the official responses from many of our so-called legislative leaders have become predictable and morbidly routine. A 19-year old gunman, armed with an AR-15 assault weapon, killed 17 and injured 14 at Marjory Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on Valentine's Day. While the majority of us are crying in sympathy with the horrendous reality experienced by parents, family members, friends, neighbors and loved ones whose lives have been shattered, the majority of our legislators continue to pay homage to the gun lobby, and allow themselves to be bribed by the NRA. House Speaker Paul Ryan gave the stock response we have all become accustomed to: "Take a breath and collect the facts. We don't just knee-jerk before we even have all the facts and the data." Megyn Kelly, a sometimes controversial political commentator, and host of the NBC morning show "Megyn Kelly Today," offered an impassioned response to this most recent school shooting: "There have been at least 12 school shootings in America so far in 2018. It's February 15th. We are averaging one just about every three or four days. How are we doing, America? Everyone O.K. with that? Apparently the answer is yes, because we haven't done anything to stop it. We're going to say how sorry and shocked and sad we are, and then we're going to move on without doing anything. And then we'll express how sorry and sad we are at the next one, and the one after that. Does anyone really think that we are going to do anything after these mass murders? I don't."

Among the multitude of poignant headlines, two stood out for me. Gregory Gibson, an author whose son Galen was killed in a school shooting, wrote an opinion piece for the Feb. 18 New York Times entitled: "Why Wasn't My Son the Last Victim?" And the Wall Street Journal of Feb. 17 dedicated a full page to "Three Decades of School Shootings," which listed many of the more than 150 children and adults that have been killed in more than 70 shootings at kindergartens, elementary, middle and high schools, since 1990. Although these school shootings deserve our immediate attention, they don't include the many other mass shootings we have experienced. The Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit organization which focuses on collecting this information, reported that from 2015 through 2017 we logged 1,046 mass shootings, which resulted in 1,260 dead and 4,667 wounded. Almost all of these mass murders involved the use of "America's most popular weapon," the AR-15 - a weapon which, according to the NRA, thanks its popularity to being "customizable, adaptable, reliable and accurate, and is versatile because it can be used for sport shooting, hunting and self-defense situations. (William Cummings and Bart Jansen, "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings," USA Today, Feb. 15, 2018.)

Every year roughly 35,000 Americans are killed with guns. This  number includes suicides. Deaths from gun homicides in the U.S. totals 27 shot dead EVERY DAY of the year. By contrast, Japan only suffers 10, the U.K. 60, and France 130 EACH YEAR The U.S. is the only country featuring a right to keep and bear arms without constitutional restrictions. The National Rifle Association wants to insure it stays that way. As the lobbying arm of the gun industry, which in 2016 collected $51.3 billion in aggregate revenue, it will do everything to protect the industry, and oppose any form of regulation, reasonable or not. This includes granting gun permits to blind people in Iowa, or opposing the development of smart guns using biometrics, which would only allow the owners of guns to operate them. This would be especially relevant, since many killings are allegedly perpetrated with stolen weapons. Between 2005 and 2010, an average of 232,000 guns were stolen each year. Smart guns could make these guns useless to the criminals that steal them.

All of this information is common knowledge. However, to NRA hardliners this is inconsequential. Its supporters will spin the available data for political purposes. After all, the organization spends millions of dollars to keep the lid on any legislation it opposes. In 2016 it spent $51 million on the election - $31  million of which went to support Donald Trump, while the top 12 legislative recipients received a combined $48 million in bribe money.

A common deflection of pro-gun legislators when responding to massacres, is to blame them on perpetrators with mental issues. The problem with that argument is that we are not the only country with people suffering from mental illness - but in other counties these people don't stage massacres. The issue is not mental illness, the issue is easy access to guns, more specifically assault weapons. Besides, after the "Sandy Hook" killings, President Obama issued an executive order stipulating that the roughly 75,000 people who receive Social Security disability benefits due to mental impairments needed to be included in a data base that would keep them from buying guns. The NRA opposed the ruling, and President Trump deleted it shortly after taking office. That's some of what $31 million will buy. In the mean time Americans are 20 times more likely to get killed by guns than citizens of any other developed country, and, according to the Center for Disease Control, we have a 1 in 315 lifetime chance of dying that way.

While using circular arguments ("when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"), the NRA will continue to oppose any attempt at getting this pandemic under control. They see themselves as the savior of our Second Amendment. They have become a semi-religious organization for many of its supporters, and they continue to hold sway over enough gutless legislators to keep sensible regulations from being adopted. In the words of Senator Chris Murphy, D-Conn., while admonishing his colleagues: "If you are not working to try to fix this, to try to stop these shootings, then you're an accomplice." In other words, when you allow yourself to be bribed with blood money, you end up with blood on your hands. It make you wonder if we should not label the NRA a terrorist organization.

One of the fathers whose daughter was killed in Parkland last Valentine's Day, while participating in a White House discussion on the subject on Feb. 26, very pointedly expressed his extreme frustration by exclaiming: "I am pissed!" Perhaps, if enough of us come together expressing the same sentiment, we can start something.

DOES GERRYMANDERING AFFECT DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES?

With the run-up to this year's mid-term elections around the corner, the debate about the constitutionality, or basic fairness, of partisan gerrymandering of electoral district has resurfaced with intensity. The practice of gerrymandering refers to drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals. Every ten years, beginning in 1790, the U.S. government has taken a census, an official count of its population. The Constitution requires this to be done to determine how many seats in the House of Representatives each state should have. Federal law requires a state to redraw the map of their congressional districts when they gain or lose as a result of a reapportionment of districts to that state. In 65% of the states legislatures are charged with the primary responsibility to create this redistricting plan. Much of the time oversight by partisan majorities has led to gerrymandered boundaries intended to help enhance the electoral dominance of the party in charge of the process.

The temptation to take advantage of this process is not new. Politicians have been redrawing district lines for their own advantage since the days of the founding fathers when Patrick Henry gerrymandered a Virginia district to try to keep James Madison out of Congress. The term "gerrymandering" was first used in 1812 by the Boston Gazette, after then Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redistricting the Massachusetts state senate election districts in such a way as to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. One of the mapped contorted districts to the north of Boston was said to have resembled the shape of a salamander. The Gazette blended that observation with the governor's last name to create the word "gerrymander," which has stuck ever since. Although the Federalists handily won the House and the governorship that year, as a direct result of Governor Gerry's maneuvering, the state Senate remained solidly in Democratic-Republican hands.

As technology improved our ability to use more and more sophisticated analytical tools, the gerrymander process  has become more effective, and,  after the 2010 census, increasingly more blatant. After Republicans suffered sweeping losses to Barack Obama in 2008, one of their strategists, Chris Jankowski, hatched a scheme to target the redistricting process following the outcome of the 2010 census. The project as dubbed "Operation Redmap," "Redistricting Majority Project." Jankowski targeted states in which legislatures would be in charge of redrawing district boundaries, flip as many chambers as possible, take control of the process, and redraw the lines to effectively consolidate Republican gains. The party invested $30 million in this project, and it has been exceedingly successful in retaking control of the House of Representatives.

Mid-2017, using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantages designed to detect potential political gerrymandering, the Associate Press scrutinized the outcome of all 435 U.S. House races in the 2016 election. The analysis concluded, among other things, that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would normally have been expected, based on the average vote hare in congressional districts across the country. Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those showing significant Republican advantages. All had districts drawn up by Republicans following the 2010 census. (David Lieb, "AP analysis shows gerrymandering benefitted GOP in 216," June 25, 2017). A separate analysis by Princeton University concurred that Republican advantages in some states were "no fluke."

Our next census is scheduled for 2020. I for no other reason, partisans on all sides have a significant stake in the outcomes of the 2018 mid-term elections. The party ending up dominating the majority of state legislatures will take charge of redrawing the electoral district maps for the subsequent ten years. It is therefore no coincidence that multiple challenges contesting  district boundaries that could help determine electoral results this year have been challenged in court, ultimately ending up in the U.S. Supreme Court. While the court has consistently found certain types of racial gerrymandering to be illegal, it has had a more difficult time applying similar rules to partisan gerrymandering. (Lois Beckett, "Is Partisan Gerrymandering Unconstitutional?," Pro Publica, Nov. 7, 20111). Thus far the Supreme Court has agreed to take up partisan gerrymandering appeals from Maryland, Wisconsin and North Carolina, cases in which lower courts have judged that their legislative district plans violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution. In the North Carolina case, aa three judge panel pointed out that the legislator who drew the map, Representative David Lewis, blatantly acknowledged: "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So, I drew this map to help foster what I think is best for the country."

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, after analyzing the 2012 an 2016 congressional elections, reported that there is "clear evidence that gerrymandering is distorting the nation's congressional maps, posing a threat to democracy." Gerrymandering has become so aggressive, extreme, and effective, that there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to set boundaries and finally establish a legal standard.

1968, THE YEAR THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

In January of 1968, fifty years ago, brandishing  a CR1 (conditional resident) visa, indicating marriage to a U.S. citizen, I legally entered the United States. I did not expect gold-plated sidewalks. However, I was ill prepared when I arrived in New York in the middle of a protracted garbage strike. First impressions do matter. I did not linger long, and proceeded to California, to my wife's home in San Carlos.

Immigration is not for the fainthearted. It does help to be a bit naïve. I left The Netherlands because I felt that the country had become provincial and somewhat narrow-minded. This perception had probably more to do with the country's size, population density, and the area in which I grew up, than with its culture. I arrived with a high school level English language proficiency, $300 in my pocket, and an offer of temporary lodging from my in-laws, people I had never met. While I focused on the promise of, ill defined and still intangible, future opportunities, I gradually began to realize that I had left my Dutch family and all my friends behind. I had moved from the relative comfort of a familiar environment for one presenting new challenges at every turn. My life in Holland had been fairly uncomplicated, and could potentially have become financially secure in a rapidly expanding family business. I surrendered the security of universal healthcare, and the cradle to grave  protection of the Dutch welfare state. And I quickly found out that I had transitioned from being part of a relatively tolerant culture to being immersed into a more fractious one. Yet, I was fully convinced that I made the right decision, and I looked forward to showing the people back home that I had moved to the promised land.

Idealism transitioned into a challenging reality soon enough. Having served two years in the army in The Netherlands, a NATO partner, I was, by treaty, not obligated to serve in the U.S. military. However, I was required to register for the draft. A few weeks after I submitted my registration I received the news that the Draft Board, in its wisdom, had decided to give me a 1-A classification, meaning that I was "available for military service." The TET offensive in Vietnam kicked off January 31 that year, and, at the time, every week more than 500 U.S. service members were killed in action. Needless to say, I had to get this obvious error corrected, or catch the next flight back to where I had come from. I had no intention of becoming part of that statistic. Since I could not take care of this over the phone, I confronted the responsible clerk in San Francisco. She exhibited her ignorance when she admitted she could not find "Holland" on her list of NATO countries. I pointed at "The Netherlands," indicating that that was one and the same. I still remember her asking me if Denmark was the same as well.............

I also quickly found out that my limited vocabulary affected my self confidence. My father had admonished me that I did not need to get a car right away, that I should use public transportation. The reality on the ground dictated the need to acquire my own transportation, however, this meant getting a driver license. Passing a driver's test in Holland had always been very involved. I was uncertain that I really wanted to go through this over here, especially since my father-in-law had provided us with a car twice he size of anything I ever drove  in Europe. After essentially memorizing a study guide, I took a deep breath, and walked into the DMV. They did not make me drive, and I aced the written test. Challenge overcome.

It took a while before my level of confidence improved appreciably. I reluctantly recognized that I needed to overcome obstacles native-born citizens were not confronted with. Finding work proved difficult. However, the more you interview, the more proficient you become. Sears finally hired me as a sporting goods salesman, and after circling the Admin Building at De Anza College several times, I finally got up the nerve to walk in to register for an English class - even though I felt offended when I was forced to take a remedial class instead of English 1-A. That decision initiated a life-long affection for the academic life.
And so it went.

In the mean time, 1968 developed into one of the most turbulent years of the 20th Century. The TET offensive changed the course of the Vietnam war. On March 16 U.S. troops from Charlie Company rampaged through My Lai, killing more than 500 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31 President Johnson withdrew from his bid to be re-nominated as a candidate for re-election. On April 4 Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Riots followed, and 46 people were killed. On June 5, in Los Angeles, Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy, who was well on his way to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president. During the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, when Hubert Humphrey was nominated , violent demonstrations and street fights with Chicago police anchored the event in full view of the entire world. And in  November that year Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected to take over the White House.

Normally, these events would have prompted my European family to question my sanity, were it not that in Europe that year France, Italy, Northern Ireland, Czechoslovakia and other countries were also on fire. The world changed in 1968. It became a year of seismic social and political change across the globe. Buried in the midst of it all were the trials and tribulations that changed my life.

Over time I managed to eke out a career, and after some personal setbacks during the later seventies, I met and married a beautiful individual with whom I will celebrate a 38-year partnership in 2018. Fifty years later, I am more comfortable at home in my adopted country than in Holland. However, its history and culture will always remain part of my DNA.

COAL IN THEIR STOCKINGS

On the Wednesday before Christmas, on the White House Lawn, President Trump accompanied by a sizable gathering of republican legislators, came together to celebrate their only significant legislative achievement of the year. This was a public ceremony spotlighting a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system. Mr. Trump was lavished with praise by the leaders of the House and the Senate. Obviously elated, the president exclaimed that it was "always a lot of fun when you win." Convinced as ever, he reiterated over and over again "we are winning."

Throughout the run-up to the vote on this legislation Mr. Trump promised that the tax bill constituted a fabulous Christmas gift for the middle class, and that he himself as well as his friends would actually lose financially because of it. However, that too proved to be political banter. At a Friday night dinner at Mar-A-Lago he reportedly greeted a gathering of his wealthy friends with: "You all just got a lot richer." How much richer? Alan Blinder, professor of economic and public affairs at Princeton University, and a former Vice Chairman of the Federal reserve, estimates that Mr. Trump's cut could amount to a minimum of $15 million annually. While billionaires found extravagant goodies in their stockings this Christmas, many others got lumps of coal.

Some of the people discovering coal in their stockings included: the millions of poor kids facing the imminent loss of federal funds for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the 13 million people who may lose their health insurance, the older, sicker, segment of the population who will soon face significant premium increases, and the 800,000 DACA recipients whose fate was again left in limbo during year-end budget negotiations.

The CHIP program was created in 1997 when Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) pushed a bipartisan campaign to create legislation that would secure access to healthcare for 10 million uninsured children nationwide as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Many of these children grew up in working households that made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Reiterating his support for this program in 2007, Senator Hatch proclaimed that: "No child should have to go without healthcare. The healthcare children receive when they are young will largely determine their quality of life for their adulthood." Nearly half of the country's children ages 3 or younger receive healthcare through this program. However, funding ran out on September 30, 2017. Although prompted by many, Congress missed re-authorization, focusing instead on the tax overhaul. By the end of January, sixteen states, including California, Texas and Florida, will run out of federal funds. By the end of March this will include thirty states, and by June all but two will be out of money. After the tax bill passed without money being allocated to re-fund CHIP, Jackie Speier (D-Ca) lamented: "What we're doing here today is basically saying: "wealthy Americans, big fat Christmas gift for you; Tiny Tim, we're taking your crutch away, from you and all the other kids in the country, and we're putting a lump of coal in your stocking." (NBC News, Dec. 21, 2017).

By including the repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate, which penalized individuals who failed to have health insurance, the writers of the tax bill were able to pay for $338 billion in additional tax cuts over the next decade. However, contrary to a statement the president made, this does not mean that Obamacare has been repealed. What it does mean is that this move will result in an estimated 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Without the mandate many of the young and healthy will forgo insurance, diluting the insurance pool to the detriment of the old and frail, and affecting steep premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts an estimated ten percent increase in premiums in many areas, often for people who can least afford these. For example: a 60-year old not receiving subsidies could face premium increases of $1,781, $1,469, $1,371, and $1,504, respectively, in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Maine. (David Blumenthal, Harvard Business Review, Dec. 19, 2017).

Finally, consider the plight of the 800,000 dreamers who President Obama protected with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that, effective March 6, 2018, the administration was rescinding the program. Early reports, following discussions between the president and democratic leadership, suggested that a deal had been struck whereby democrats would support a budget agreement in exchange for a permanent DACA fix, including deportation protection, for program participants. Sadly, both continuing resolutions that were past to temporarily keep the government funded did not deliver on that promise. And many republicans appear adamantly opposed to such linkage. This leaves these individuals, many of which only know the U.S. as their home country, uncomfortably in limbo.

So, when President Trump uses "winning" as a mantra, or even as a strategy, we ought to remember, to paraphrase an old saying, that "winners see the gain, while losers endure the pain."

Happy New Year!

CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS FAVORS ACCUSED SEXUAL MOLESTERS

The recent spate of bombshell allegations of sexual harassment perpetrated by powerful public figures, leading to terminations and forced resignations, almost seem to have become routine. The effect of the "Me Too" post-Weinstein movement is reverberating across the country. However, nowhere is the effect more prominent than at the highest levels of our government. While the resignations of Senators Al Franken (D-Min) and Trent Franks (R-Tex) and Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) are suggestive of public pressure applied by their congressional colleagues, it should not be surprising that all of them would have preferred to have their cases heard by their respective congressional ethics committees. Others, like Representatives Blake Farenthold (R-Tex) and Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev) seem to be holding out to do just that.

In the House and the Senate, ethics committees determine whether a member of Congress violated House or Senate ethics rules. In the Senate, the committee is made up of three Republicans and three Democrats, five men and one woman. These committees can't impose criminal sanctions, but in the most severe cases they can recommend that a member should be expelled. To activate such a recommendation the respective chamber must adopt it by a two thirds majority vote.

What makes this process attractive to accused members of Congress is that, for instance, the Senate Ethics Copmmittee has not issued a public punishment in a decade. The most recent expulsions occurred in 1861 and 1862 when 14 senators were expelled for disloyalty during the Civil War. More recently, in 1995, the committee voted unanimously to expel Senator Bob Packwood. He resigned before the matter was voted on by the full Senate.

It has been alleged that these committees are simply used as tools to bury cases until the public storm passes. They have developed a history of routinely disposing of submitted ethics complaints. In 2016 the Senate committee received 63 complaints of violations, 43 were dismissed out of hand for lack of "subject matter jurisdiction." Even when allegations were judged to have merit, the decision was made that no violation of Senate rules existed. The remaining 20 cases were dismissed for a variety of technical reasons. No case led to disciplinary action.

The closest thing to a Human Resources department for employees of the Legislative Branch of our government is the Office of Compliance, set up by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. The Act was initiated to protect more than 30,000 governmental employees. The O.O.C. Is its administrative arm charged with ensuring its integrity through programs of disputes resoliution, education and enforcement. In a typical case, staffers file complaints of sexual harassment with the O.O.C. The process used to resolve complaints is convoluted and time-consuming, and it is allegedly designed to protect the office of the accused member of Congress. Various sources details specifics.

To recap: After an incident, but before filing an official com plaint, victims are required to go through 30 days of "counseling" with an O.O.C. employee. Following that process, they have 15 days to decide whether they want to pursue the next step, which is 30 days of mandated "mediation." During mediation, a lawyer representing the congressional office gets involved. His or her job is to protect the office and the institution. This lawyer is funded with taxpayer money. If no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling-off period, before a complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it is usually accompanied  by a non-disclosure  agreement, and paid for with taxpayer money. (Emily Stewart, Vox, Nov. 20, 2017).

Representative Jackie Speier (D-Ca) and others are now pushing Congress to retool this process. According to Speier, the O.O.C. is "toothless" and "a joke." She recently told the House Administration Committee that "for some victims the complaint process is worse than the sexual harassment itself." During a Nov. 20 interview of MSNBC, she reiterated that "we have to make sure that a complaint is taken seriously, and the person who is the victim is not somehow tortured or intimidated into not filing a complaint. That's what it is right now in Congress."

It should not surprise anyone that sexual harassment appears to be prevalent in many state capitols. The ingredients are all there: power, ego, a disproportionate supply of testosterone and an abundance of ambitious young staffers who could worry that speaking up may be a career killer. We have a long way to go to eliminate inappropriate behavior by powerful people in prominent positions. Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Mario Batali and others can be fired. But at the pinnacle of power in our government we are stuck with individuals with individuals who, for political reasons, won't be removed. We have a Supreme Court justice who was confirmed by the Senate in 1991, even though he was credibly accused of sexual harassment. And we elected a president, even though he bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault, and who just recently publicly supported an accused pedophile who ran for a Senate seat from Alabama.

Change can't come soon enough. More power to the bi-partisan group of, mostly female, legislators pushing for reform. However, given the intricacies of our congressional decision making process, and the players involved who need to take the lead to affect a satisfactory outcome, nobody should hold their breath.