wrongologist – Page 7 – The Wrongologist

A Unifying National Narrative

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Paines Creek, Brewster, Cape Cod, MA – May 2024 photo by Bob Amaral Photography

Wrongo has just started reading Erik Larson’s “The Demon of Unrest”, a history of how Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC fits into the overall story of the Civil War. It has a certain currency, since Wrongo and Ms. Right took a Charleston harbor tour in April that prominently featured Fort Sumter.

Usually, Wrongo would wait until he’s finished it to talk about a book, but today is an exception. In Larson’s note to readers (pg. XI) he starts by saying:

“I was well into my research on the saga of Fort Sumter and the advent of the American Civil War when the events of January 6, 2021, took place.”

That is the only time Larson refers to Jan. 6. The book mostly covers the five+ months from Lincoln’s election in November 1860 to the shelling of Fort Sumter in April 1861. We see that during those five months, amid the building talk of secession, a pro-slavery mob attempted to stop Congress from tallying the vote to elect Lincoln.

Knowing about that should hit very close to home for Americans today.

While there’s nothing explicitly in the book about Jan. 6, the Trump years (down to today) is a kind of spectral presence, not least when Larson describes the urgent concerns of public officials that the electoral count to certify Lincoln’s election would be disrupted, or that the certifications would be stolen or destroyed, and the Capitol attacked by angry Americans.

Sound familiar? The basic question today is similar to the question in 1861: “Can America stay together?” After the Civil War, we never thought that we would have to ask that question again. Today we can add a question about whether a presidential election loser should suffer consequences if they launched a coup attempt to retain presidential power.

It seems clear at this point that to bind the country together, we need to rediscover and commit to a new national narrative, a reaffirmation of America’s Cause.

All of this came to mind when Wrongo looked at a survey completed in April by the Nationhood Lab at Salve Regina University’s Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. The Nationhood Lab is working to develop a new narrative of America’s purpose that can be broadly shared.

They asked registered voters what in the nature of the US they most identified with by offering statement pairs about our national purpose, American identity, and the meaning of our past. In each case, one statement was keyed off the ideals in the Declaration of Independence (Civic Ideals) while the other was rooted in characteristics like ancestry, heritage, character, and values (Heritage and Traditions).

Each was presented in a manner that made them sound as attractive as possible. The participants were then asked to choose between civic ideals and our traditional heritage/character. Interestingly, the civic statements proved far more attractive regardless of gender, age, race, education or region, except for Republicans and those who voted for Trump in 2020:

Sixty-three percent of Americans preferred the statement that we are united “not by a shared religion or ancestry or history, but by our shared commitment to a set of American founding ideals: that we all have inherent and equal rights to live, to not be tyrannized, and to pursue happiness as we each understand it”
The alternative, that we are united “by shared history, traditions, and values and by our fortitude and character as Americans, a people who value hard work, individual responsibility, and national loyalty”, was embraced by only 33% of respondents.
Fifty-six percent of respondents said they agreed more with a statement that Americans “are duty-bound to defend one another’s inherent rights” over one that said we “are duty-bound to defend our culture, interests, and way of life” which was preferred by 36% of the survey participants.
Fifty-four percent preferred the statement “Freedom, justice, and equality are ideals each generation must fight for” and that “we must pledge ourselves to make our Union more perfect.” While the alternate statement, “Security, individual liberties, and respect for our founding values are the heritage each generation must fight for” was chosen by 40% of those surveyed.

Below is a chart with the full demographic results of the survey:

These results are in some ways, an antidote to the terrible polling Biden is experiencing. Nothing in the NYT poll should cause panic. While the NYT headline is that Trump leads in 5 states, that’s not actually what their own data says. Trump leads in 3 (AZ, GA, NV) and 3 are essentially tied.

But it’s very hard to believe that a significant share of people in the Nationhood Lab polls that share an overwhelming belief in civic ideals will turn around and vote for Trump in six months.

If you want additional support for the concept that current political polling can’t be relied on, consider the just-concluded Maryland Democratic Senate primary. David Trone, a businessman who put $62 million of his own money into his primary campaign lost to Angela Alsobrooks, Prince George’s County Executive. From Charlotte Clymer:

“There were ten polls on the Maryland US Senate Democratic Primary released this year. David Trone led in seven of them, most by double digits. Angela Alsobrooks led in three, never by more than five points. Alsobrooks just beat Trone by double digits.”

Political polling is massively overrated even if there is some marginal utility to it. If you really want results, you have to get out and vote.

Status Update: Ukraine/Russia War

The Daily Escape:

Pueblo Bonito Great House, Chaco Canyon, NM – May 2024 photo by James C. Wilson

Today we return to the almost invisible war in Ukraine. Since the Oct. 7 start of the Hamas/Israel war, Ukraine has slipped out of the consciousness of Americans, and politicians in particular.

The terrible slowness of the US approval of additional funding for Ukraine also took a toll because the resulting lack of weapons forced Ukraine into a defensive posture, attempting to hold Russia at bay by conceding ground slowly throughout the past six months.

Now, Ukraine is slowly creeping back onto the front pages. There is a nervous tone about reports from Ukraine suggesting that the war has entered a new and dangerous phase. From the NYT:

“In the past three days, Russian troops, backed by fighter jets, artillery and lethal drones, have poured across Ukraine’s northeastern border and seized at least nine villages and settlements, and more square miles per day than at almost any other point in the war….In light of the Congressional vote for $61 billion in aid, this may come as a surprise.”

“Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are fleeing to Kharkiv, the nearest big city.”

Kharkiv itself may be threatened. This news brings with it tough questions: How far can Russia go this time? Is this a setback for the Ukrainians, or now that the US has approved new weapons, is it a turning point?

The Ukrainians complained for months about severe shortages of ammunition, which was exacerbated by the intransigence of Republicans in Congress. Their failure to act delayed the delivery of key air defense weapons and ammunition, possibly turning the tide of the war in favor of the Russians.

And the Ukrainian military also must replenish its fighting forces. Russia is a country with about three times Ukraine’s population, and while both have suffered heavy casualties, Ukraine’s personnel needs are becoming critical. The more than two years of fighting off the Russians has left Ukraine desperate for fresh troops. The delay in US arms shipments caused by Congressional Republicans has also been a contributing factor to undermining morale, in addition to undermining the defense of Ukraine.

In 2023 Russia increased its troop mobilization efforts. Since the summer of 2023, difficulties in raising the pace of Ukrainian mobilization and Russia’s efforts on the ground have given a decisive advantage to Putin’s forces. It is hard to see how Ukraine can overcome this difference, given its smaller population and its vastly smaller economy. Adam Tooze says that: (brackets by Wrongo)

“…at the start of the war the ratio [of Russia’s economy to Ukraine’s] was more than 10:1, it is now far worse…the likelihood is that the balance will tip further against Ukraine.”

Cartoons Of The Week – May 12, 2024

(The Monday Wake Up Call will be published on Tuesday this week)

It probably says something about the nation, since cartoons this week are, well, terrible. They’re mostly iterations of RFK Jr’s brain worm or riffs on Trump’s trial in NYC. Here are the best of a lower quality lot.

Brain disease is on the rise:

MAGA’s selective memory:

Cutting Bibi off from the big bombs sparks outrage:

The media’s lopsided reporting:

Remembering The 1960s

The Daily Escape:

Corona Arch trail, UT – photo by Mark Shutt

Over the past few days, Wrongo and Ms. Right have taken a temporary deep dive back into the 1960s, the Vietnam War, activism and the folk music that accompanied those times. We did this by reading “The Women” a novel by Kristen Hannah, and watching a documentary “I Am A Noise” a truly stunning biopic about Joan Baez.

The scope of both go beyond the 1960s into the 1980s for “The Women” and up to the present for the Baez film, but the Sixties decade is the foundation for the book and the film.

Let’s talk about the book. “The Women” is about the early days of the Vietnam War, and is the story of an Army nurse, Frances McGrath (Frankie). She goes from being a newbie to a highly skilled surgical nurse on the frontlines of the Vietnam War only to return to a changed America that does not welcome home its veterans. Worse, the US government, including the VA, will not recognize that women were even in Vietnam, despite the fact that around 6,000 of them served in-country. How Frankie adapts to a world in which she feels totally out of place is the plot of the novel.

The book also charts Frankie’s PTSD, and estrangement from her upper class family after the war. It is filled with references to the music of the time, and if you are of that generation, all of the tunes will be familiar. While the historical fiction aspects of the novel are engaging, all of the characters are very thinly sketched. Frankie’s several romances propel the narrative, with all of them ending badly, contributing to her spiral into drug and alcohol dependence. It’s not giving too much away to say that she finds a healthy place in society, after many difficult years.

Wrongo has read much of the great literature that came out of the Vietnam War, including O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried“, as well as the extraordinary non-fiction Herr’s “Dispatches“; Sheehan’s “A Bright Shining Lie” and Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest“.

“The Women” isn’t up to the standard of any of those books, but it took Wrongo and Ms. Right back to revisit the changes that the Vietnam War brought to America in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Joan Baez film is essentially two stories, first about her being dead-center of the civil rights and antiwar movements, and the second, a starkly frank and difficult look at her life-long struggle with the crippling anxiety attacks she suffered beginning in her teenage years. At one point in the film, she says:

“I’m not very good with one-on-one relationships, I’m good with one-on-two-thousand relationships,”

Her mental health struggles are handled with sensitivity and finesse, although there’s a big reveal near the end.

In the 1950s, Baez was a college dropout singing barefoot in coffeehouses around Boston. She was invited to perform at the 1959 Newport Folk Festival and was “discovered”. That led to her meteoric rise to fame. She sang at Carnegie Hall before she was 18 and was on the cover of Time magazine at 21. Baez says in the film:

“For whatever reason…..I think I was the right voice at the right time.”

Baez’s crystal-clear soprano was unforgettable. Wrongo started listening to her in 1963. Her pure young soprano on the first few albums still give him chills. And her activism placed her at the center of several political movements. She sparked a resurgence of American folk music, sang at both the 1963 March on Washington and at Woodstock. She helped raise Bob Dylan to prominence. She was on the fields with Cesar Chavez. And MLK Jr. visited her after she was arrested for protesting the Vietnam War.

Baez remained interesting if not relevant down through the decades, until today. In the early 1980s, she dated Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. In 2015, Taylor Swift invited Baez to dance on stage with her at a concert. Baez also visited Ukraine with the Ukraine Children’s Action Project, helping raise awareness for the war’s youngest victims.

The film’s big reveal comes about 90 minutes in, when Baez gets therapy and begins to grapple with childhood trauma. Periods of seeming contentment would be followed by breakdowns. After she endured a decade-long addiction to quaaludes, Baez tried to prise out “the kernel” of her interior darkness. It turns out that in therapy, Joan and her younger sister Mimi both believed that they were abused by their father as young children.

Baez thinks that was the cause of her difficulties with intimacy and her long periods of anxiety and depression. Clearly the film shows Baez and her two sisters as having been damaged early in life and then trying to cope with it for the rest of their lives. Ultimately Baez is shown having successfully navigated the past six decades, if not always easily, with her talent, perseverance and courage. See it yourself.

Enough for this week, it’s time for our Saturday Soother where we try to sluff off the tiny particles of outrage that cling to us from another week of political and geopolitical trauma. Here on the Fields of Wrong, the hummingbirds and the bluebirds are back. But this week, we’ve gotten very few things on our to-do list crossed off.

To help you prepare for another week of RFK Jr.’s brain worms and Trump’s trial, grab a seat outdoors in the shade and listen to a few tunes that come from the 1960s. First, the Vietnam anthem “We Gotta Get Outta This Place” by Eric Burdon and the Animals:

There are films that show hundreds of GIs in Vietnam singing this. Next, Joan Baez got her start as a folk singer. Here are two deep cuts from when she was very young. First, the traditional “Will you go laddie go?” Recorded in Edinburgh 1965:

Second, “With God on our side” also recorded in 1965, where she covers Bob Dylan:

This Bob Dylan song was written 1965…. and in 2024 we still don’t get it.

Oops, Boeing Does It Again

The Daily Escape:

Lenticular cloud at sunrise, Salton City, CA – May 2024 photo by Paulette Donnellon

At a time when Boeing is facing calls by the flying public as well as from governments to return to its focus on safety, the company has scored an “own goal” by deciding to pick a fight with its in-house firefighters union, who help to keep Boeing itself safe.

From The Stand, a Seattle-based newsletter about working people:

“The more than 120 fire fighters who protect Boeing employees and facilities in Washington state — members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local I-66 — are struggling to get a fair contract from the Arlington, Virginia-based company.”

At the heart of the dispute is Boeing’s insistence on raising the time it takes for firefighters to reach the maximum pay scale from 14 years to 19 years. Negotiations have been ongoing through a federal mediator for more than two months, with no deal reached. Nineteen years is nearly the entire work span of a firefighter’s career. If this deal is accepted, they will hit the top of their pay scale and retire soon after. It’s understandable why that would be good for the company. From Boeing: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“Despite extensive discussions through an impartial federal mediator, we did not reach an agreement with the union….We are disappointed the union chose not to even bring our offer to its members for one final vote….We have now locked out members of the bargaining unit and fully implemented our contingency plan with highly qualified firefighters performing the work of IAFF members.”

Americans Have No Idea How Deep Our Illiberal Roots Are

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Avon Beach, NC – May 2024 photo by Donna Cartwright Hayden

Discussions about “Illiberalism” are suddenly popping up in Wrongo’s daily feeds from many sources. Several are reviews of a book (“Illiberal America”) by Steven Hahn, an NYU professor of history.

Hahn also wrote an article in Saturday’s NYT that condenses the arguments in his book. In his column, “The Deep, Tangled Roots of American Illiberalism”, Hahn argues that American illiberalism is not a mere reaction to a dominant tradition of freedom and individual rights, but a philosophy that has long competed against liberalism for primacy in American politics.

David Leonhardt in a NYT book review of Hahn’s book says:

“This country’s liberal tradition is certainly strong. It explains the democratic radicalism of the American Revolution, the relative openness of the US immigration system in the early 19th century and the inclusiveness of the nation’s public education system in the early 20th century.”

A short version of Hahn’s thesis is that the US has long been deeply reactionary and it’s amazing we’ve gotten as far as we have without a challenge to American democracy prior to Trump. Here’s a excerpt of Hahn’s view of our history:

“Back in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville, in “Democracy in America,” glimpsed the illiberal currents that already entangled the country’s politics. While he marveled at the “equality of conditions,” the fluidity of social life and the strength of republican institutions, he also worried about the “omnipotence of the majority.”

“What I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there,” Tocqueville wrote, “but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.” He pointed to communities “taking justice into their own hands,” and warned that “associations of plain citizens can compose very rich, influential, and powerful bodies, in other words, aristocratic bodies.” Lamenting their intellectual conformity, Tocqueville believed that if Americans ever gave up republican government, “they will pass rapidly on to despotism,” restricting “the sphere of political rights, taking some of them away in order to entrust them to a single man.”

The slide toward despotism that Tocqueville feared may be well underway, whatever the election’s outcome. Even if they try to fool themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump won’t follow through, millions of voters seem ready to entrust their rights to “a single man” who has announced his intent to use autocratic powers for retribution, repression, expulsion and misogyny.

Only by recognizing what we’re up against can we mount an effective campaign to protect our democracy, leaning on the important political struggles — abolitionism, antimonopoly, social democracy, human rights, civil rights, feminism — that have challenged illiberalism in the past and offer the vision and political pathways to guide us in the future.

Our biggest mistake would be to believe that we’re watching an exceptional departure in the country’s history. Because from the first, Mr. Trump has tapped into deep and ever-expanding illiberal roots. Illiberalism’s history is America’s history.”

America remains a self-deluded country since many Americans have no idea just how illiberal they are, or how deep those illiberal roots run. Today’s college students are living through the consequences of illiberalism. Educational institutions with DEI programs and cultural studies majors have no qualms about siccing the police on their students.

It’s no surprise that university administrators don’t observe the liberal tolerance they espouse in their curricula. But what’s less clear is American colleges and universities exist as training grounds for lawyers, physicians, future Wall Street geniuses and other legs in the stool of elitism. These students are supposed to be compliant because those professions require it.

Time to wake up America! In a few months we’re holding a presidential election in which an illiberal ethnonationalist will stoke white fear of replacement while his Party exploits anti-antisemitism to chip away at our tenuous liberal coalition. There’s danger, and we have little time left to get it right.

No matter how much violence a Trump loss unleashes it’ll pale in comparison to the violence that will come under a Trump dictatorship.

To help you wake up, watch and listen to Van Halen’s “Ballot Or The Bullet” from their 1998 album “Van Halen III”. The song’s title comes from a 1964 speech by Malcolm X who, while speaking about the civil rights struggle, said “We’re going to be forced either to use the ballot or the bullet.”

Van Halen wasn’t a political band, but they appropriated Malcolm X’s speech for this tune:

Also, Eddie Van Halen played slide guitar on this, a rarity.

Sample Lyrics:

Give me liberty or give me death
No truer words have ever been said
Well are you prepared for your very last breath?
Don’t you dare start what you cannot finish
So when we face, face the adversary
No longer are we the minority

When a house is divided, it just will not stand
Once it’s decided, a line drawn in the sand

Ah, the ballot or the bullet
The choice is up to you
The ballot or the bullet
Tell me what you gonna do
The sword or the pen
Can’t be held by the same hand

Cartoons of the Week – May 5, 2024

We’re at the start of a new week, and the cartoonists remain deeply into the student protests and Gov. Kristi Noem shooting her dog. But let’s start with a chart from the polling organization Civic Science. This is from the weekly newsletter by their CEO, John Dick:

“Last month, America’s attention to politics reached a new low. For the first time in the 9+ years we’ve tracked it, more US adults follow politics “not at all closely” than those who follow it “very closely.” The stat is especially mind-boggling when it’s what many believe to be an existential-level election year.”

The percentage of Americans who say they follow politics very closely has fallen from 50+% in Q4 2020 to 26% today:

Note that the result was based on 1.1 million responses. OTOH, the survey found that “very closely” plus “somewhat closely” totaled 71%. On to cartoons, which this week, aren’t funny.

People were shocked by Trump’s answers in Time Magazine:

Gov. Noem can’t live down shooting her puppy:

Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. University administrators should take note:

The press thinks Biden should have ended the Hamas/Israel war by now:

The Dems still own the best issue for this November:

Can We Make Billionaires Pay More Taxes?

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Cundy’s Harbor, ME – May 2024 photo by Eric Storm Photo

Economist Gabriel Zucman is a proponent of a global wealth tax. His column in the NYT explains what that is and how it would work:

“Until recently, it was hard to know just how good the superrich are at avoiding taxes. Public statistics are…quiet about their contributions to government coffers….Over the past few years…scholars have published studies…attempting to fix that problem. While we still have data for only a handful of countries, we’ve found that the ultrawealthy consistently avoid paying their fair share in taxes.”

The problem of billionaires paying very little in taxes is international. In the US, the problem is that billionaires rarely have any salaries to speak of:

”Why do the world’s most fortunate people pay among the least in taxes, relative to the amount of money they make? The simple answer is that while most of us live off our salaries, tycoons like Jeff Bezos live off their wealth. In 2019, when…Bezos was still Amazon’s chief executive, he took home an annual salary of just $81,840. But he owns roughly 10% of the company, which made a profit of $30 billion in 2023.

If Amazon gave its profits back to shareholders as dividends, which are subject to income tax, Mr. Bezos would face a hefty tax bill. But Amazon does not pay dividends to its shareholders. Neither does Berkshire Hathaway or Tesla. Instead, the companies keep their profits and reinvest them, making their shareholders even wealthier.

Unless…Bezos, Warren Buffett or Elon Musk sell their stock, their taxable income is relatively minuscule. But they can still make eye-popping purchases by borrowing against their assets. Mr. Musk, for example, used his shares in Tesla as collateral to borrow $13 billion to put toward his acquisition of Twitter.”

Slashing the corporate tax rate and getting rid of the estate tax have also had dire effects in terms of wealth distribution:

“Historically, the rich had to pay hefty taxes on corporate profits, the main source of their income. And the wealth they passed on to their heirs was subject to the estate tax. But both taxes have been gutted in recent decades.”

In 2018, under the Trump administration, the US cut its maximum corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%. And the estate tax has almost disappeared. Relative to the wealth of US households, it generates only a quarter of the tax revenues it raised in the 1970s.

The effective tax rate (the percentage of someone’s total income that they paid in taxes in all forms) is now lower for the 400 richest American billionaires than it is for the bottom 50% of income earners. Here’s the effective tax rate in 1960 and 2018 for these two groups respectively:

Source: NYT

The US national debt is $35 trillion, almost all of which we acquired during the same period as the reduction of taxes on the rich. That isn’t a coincidence. And since capital and people are both completely mobile, the problem of taxation of wealth doesn’t end at our borders. More from Zucman:

“There is a way to make tax dodging less attractive: a global minimum tax. In 2021, more than 130 countries agreed to apply a minimum tax rate of 15% on the profits of large multinational companies. So no matter where a company parks its profits, it still has to pay at least a baseline amount of tax under the agreement.”

Zucman is proposing we apply a similar minimum tax to billionaires:

“Critics might say…this is a wealth tax, the constitutionality of which is debated in the US. In reality, the proposal stays firmly in the realm of income taxation. Billionaires who already pay the baseline amount of income tax would have no extra tax to pay. The goal is that only those who dial down their income to dodge the income tax would be affected.”

Critics of a minimum tax say it would be hard to apply because wealth is difficult to value. But according to Zucman’s research, about 60% of US billionaires’ wealth is in stocks of publicly traded companies. The rest is mostly ownership stakes in private businesses, which can be assigned a value by comparing them to the value of similar firms.

But the big issue is how to get broad international participation in this billionaire’s minimum tax. In the current multinational company minimum tax agreement, participating countries are allowed to overtax companies from nations that haven’t signed on. This incentivizes every country to join the agreement or lose tax revenue.

The same mechanism could be used for billionaires. For example, if Switzerland refuses to tax the superrich who live there, other countries could tax them on its behalf. Countries such as Brazil, have shown leadership on the issue, and France, Germany, South Africa and Spain have recently expressed support for a minimum tax on billionaires.

This is far from a done deal, although Biden has proposed a billionaire tax with similar objectives. And Zucman’s proposed tax wouldn’t impact the ordinary rich. He says there are about 3,000 people who would be required to give a relatively small bit of their profits back to governments.

Zucman’s closing words:

“The idea that billionaires should pay a minimum amount of income tax is not a radical idea. What is radical is continuing to allow the wealthiest people in the world to pay a smaller percentage in income tax than nearly everybody else.”

Great idea, one that almost everyone agrees with, EXCEPT those who have the power to do something about it. We’re looking at you, Republicans! Also, when a significant percentage of the (relatively) poor in this country support Trump who is dedicated to cutting taxes for the rich, is there any hope that taxes will be raised on the wealthy?

That’s more than enough thinking for this week. It’s time for our Saturday Soother, where we attempt to ignore the latest about the campus protests, or whatever else Gov. Kristi Noem is training her gun at, and gear up for another week in the political and cultural wars.

Here on the Fields of Wrong, the crab apple trees are in full bloom along with our weeping cherries. There is still plenty to do if we are to finish our spring cleanup before summer.

But, before we start down that backbreaking path, let’s grab a mug of coffee and a seat outside. Now watch and listen to Luigi Boccherini’s “Guitar Quintet No. 4 in D major “Fandango”, G.448”, recorded in the Unser Lieben Frauen Church, in Bremen Germany in 2019. Boccherini was an Italian composer and cellist. He wrote a large amount of chamber music, including over one hundred string quintets for two violins, viola and two cellos:

More On The Campus Protests

The Daily Escape:

Japanese Garden, Portland, OR – April 2024 photo via The Oregonian

On Tuesday night, hundreds of NYPD officers entered Columbia University in riot gear, one night after students occupied the University’s Hamilton Hall.

And in a “you can’t make this s__t up” moment, Tuesday was exactly 56 years to the day when police cleared Hamilton Hall of Vietnam War protestors in 1968. The new clear out happened 13 days after students built their encampment and lit the match that started a student movement against the war in Gaza on college campuses nationwide.

The police crackdown at Columbia isn’t an isolated event. There was a round of arrests at City College in Harlem (NY). And police responded to clashes between pro-Palestinian and counter-protesters at UCLA. On Monday, demonstrators at The New School took over Parsons School of Design. Meanwhile, police cleared an encampment at Yale. Nationwide, more than 1,000 students have been taken into police custody since the original encampment began at Columbia on April 18.

From John Dean:

“More than four dozen colleges now have active protests against . . . against what? Signs demand an end to genocide in Gaza, disinvestment from Israel, and an end of US support for Israel. But Jewish students are also being attacked. For some protestors, Palestinians are the people fighting for freedom, and the Jews are the oppressors.”

As the protests continue, the story grows ever more complicated. House Republicans plan a series of hearings into what they are characterizing as antisemitism on college campuses. House Speaker Mike Johnson announced the hearings and also threatened the loss of federal funding:

“Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen absolute lawlessness and chaos on college and university campuses across America. It’s not right, and everybody in this country knows it. If they don’t correct this quickly, you will see Congress respond in time, you’re gonna see funding sources begin to dry up. You’re gonna see every level of accountability that we can muster.”

Columbia’s leadership took the Republicans at their word. They invited the NYPD to campus to remove students from Hamilton Hall with force.

Before the Columbia students occupied Hamilton Hall and got ejected, and before the UCLA demonstrating groups decided to fight each other, these protests seemed familiar in that they were an echo of the Occupy Movement in 2012. Back then, the vast majority of the violence was caused by police, much like it is today, But it isn’t clear that today’s encampments have sufficient size or strength to achieve their goals. They are certainly not of the scale of 2012’s Occupy, let alone the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

If the past tells us anything, we should be skeptical that these protests will actually lead anywhere. The 1968 Vietnam protests eventually fizzled out, particularly when it became clear that students would be shot and killed by police and the National Guard. Occupy ended with a 17-city crackdown by police that happened just two months after Occupy began. The George Floyd protests fizzled out, but not before significant property damage and police crackdowns.

One thing is very clear: The speed with which campus protestors have embraced Palestine is remarkable. These students have never shown interest in the slaughter of Muslim children in Syria, or women and teenage girls in Iran. To Wrongo’s knowledge, none have protested against genocide in Darfur. Is now what we’re seeing the power of TikTok to feed highly curated information to them?

Some might say that the students are expressing normal human empathy, possibly with a touch of ignorance regarding the history of the Palestinians and the Israelis. And certainly with a definite lack of understanding of the limits of free speech in America. Free speech does not permit extended protests on private property.

The purpose of free speech is the absolute freedom to speak your mind. The First Amendment does not grant the right for a person or group to occupy property that doesn’t belong to them. Freedom of speech does not include resisting arrest. Would any of us say that freedom of speech allows protesters to occupy their home? Free speech doesn’t allow making threats to kill a person or members of a group.

In addition to the desire to draw attention to the Gaza carnage, the campus protests seem to be about the role of the US government and American companies supporting Israel. Doesn’t that make their protests difficult to understand? Israel has been a US ally for more than 70 years. In that time, it hasn’t been able to defend itself without substantial US aid. Most Israeli aircraft bombing Gaza targets today are American-made.

Does our support for Israel make the US complicit in the Israeli military action in Gaza? Of course, but should the US now end that support? If colleges divest from Israel, would that help Palestinians? Hard to say, but it’s unlikely to cause any meaningful change.

Wrongo doesn’t think the students’ problems are with Israel the country or necessarily, with the Israeli people. Most of the heat is reserved for actions by Bibi, his cronies and the IDF. From The Economist:

“Two areas where the IDF has fallen short are its responsibilities as an occupying power and its duty to minimize civilian deaths. Some 1.7m people have been displaced; many lack adequate food, water or medicine.”

More: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“…many armies would find Israel’s rules of engagement disproportionate and hence illegal. The IDF is reported to have set the threshold of civilian deaths in justifying decisions to strike a junior Hamas fighter at 20:1 and a senior leader at 100:1. For Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator, America set a threshold of 30:1.”

The IDF appears to be failing in its goal of destroying Hamas. After six months, Hama’s most senior leaders are still alive, and over 100 hostages remain in captivity. Most important, Israel appears to have no strategy to prevent Hamas from rising from the rubble. Without meeting their goal of destroying Hamas, Israel will remain subject to insurgency.

Israel is paying a high price both economically and diplomatically for its Hamas war. There has been a very real shift in support for Israel’s methods of conducting its war with Hamas. If the student protests were to energize America voters to reject supporting an unending conflict, a significant number of American politicians would eventually follow.

Today, Israel is in a doom loop where the operations designed to reduce the number of terrorists will likely attract recruits to replace them. Without a plan for peace, Israel will end up as an occupier or as in the past, repeatedly striking Gaza to tamp down the insurrectionists.

The story of the 2024 campus protests is still being written. The outcome remains difficult to predict. With the end of the academic year approaching, could the calendar be the deciding factor?

Should Dems Worry About Students Disrupting Their Convention?

The Daily Escape:

Sunrise, Iron Duff, NC – April 2024 photo by Rhiannon Medford. Hard to believe those colors aren’t enhanced.

The clashes between Hamas/Israel war protesters and police on college campuses nationwide is spreading alarm among Senate Democrats. They’re worrying that this type of anger will make the Party’s Chicago-based presidential nominating convention a spectacle that will hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. Does that mean we’re looking at Chicago 1968 version 2.0?

From The Wrongologist:

“In 1968, Tom Hayden helped plan the antiwar protests in Chicago that targeted the Democratic National Convention. Police officers clashed with thousands of demonstrators, injuring hundreds in a televised spectacle that a national commission later called a police riot. Yet, Hayden and others were charged by federal officials with inciting riot and conspiracy.”

Those demonstration led to the Chicago Police riot. We remember it for Mayor Richard Daly saying these immortal words:

“Gentlemen, let’s get this straight. The policeman isn’t there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”

Those of us who have reached a certain age remember too well what happened in Chicago at the 1968 convention. From The Hill:

“A number of Democratic senators are old enough to remember the violent clashes between police and anti-Vietnam War protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, where the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey as the party’s presidential candidate was marred by images of police tear-gassing protesters and beating them with clubs.”

The Atlantic’s David Frum explains why the disruptions in Chicago in 1968 are unlikely to happen again. His point is that 2024 isn’t 1968. Protesters presuming to replicate 1968 will find the US government is much better prepared, Frum says: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“…responsibility for protecting political conventions has shifted from cities and states to the federal government. This…was formalized in a directive signed by…Clinton in 1998. The order created a category of “National Special Security Events,” for which planning would be led by the Secret Service.

National Security Special Events draw on all the resources of the federal government, including, if need be, those of the Defense Department. In 2016, the federal government spent $50 million on security for each of the two major-party conventions.

Those funds enabled Cleveland, the host of the 2016 Republican convention, to deploy thousands of law-enforcement personnel….Federal funds paid for police to be trained in understanding the difference between lawful and unlawful protest, and to equip them with body cameras to record interactions with the public. The city also used federal funds to buy 300 bicycles to field a force that could move quickly into places where cars might not be able to go, and that could patrol public spaces in a way that was more approachable and friendly.”

This wasn’t an issue in 2020 when the conventions were mostly virtual due to the Covid pandemic.

Right now, the media are making the campus demonstrations seem like a big deal, and they are, in the sense that university campuses are lightly controlled and lightly policed. Frum adds:

“Pro-Palestinian protesters have proved considerably more circumspect when they march in places where laws of public order are upheld.”

The Feds have also gone to school on the Jan. 6 insurrection that has informed their planning. While the subsequent J6 prosecutions make it much less likely that people hoping to disrupt the DNC convention will ever get much beyond being hopeful. It’s important to point out that the scale of today’s protests are nowhere near the same as the Vietnam protests in 1968.

More on the current thinking of students from Simon Rosenberg:

“…there is not broad support for these protests in America or on American college campuses. Most young people are far more concerned with making a living, their health after a pandemic, loss of reproductive freedom and our democracy, climate change, gun safety and a host of other issues.”

Rosenberg includes an interesting chart from the Harvard IOP Youth Poll:

The only issue where inflation did not win its individual match-up was when it was paired with women’s reproductive rights. Women’s reproductive rights was considered the more important issue, 57% to 43%. Israel/Palestine ranked next to last among the 16 issues.

Wrongo has no idea if the campus demonstrations will morph into something huge, or become a nothingburger, but he agrees with this from Caroline Orr Bueno:

“The stories you hear in the media will be the most extreme examples that can be found, and nearly all of them will be fundamentally misrepresented based on the biases of the person telling the story. This will fuel a cycle of escalation that few people on either side want.”

She makes the point that university administrators are not prepared to handle the demonstrations while at the same time, facing donor anger. From the London FT:

“Donors are withdrawing millions of dollars in planned funding to punish US universities for their responses to Hamas’s attack on Israel, in a stand-off over free speech, higher education funding and academic leaders’ public responsibilities.”

The FT also reports that:

“Such actions have highlighted the influence of donors, who last year contributed $60bn to US universities…”

Time to wake up, America! Let’s not get twisted up by the potential for demonstrations in Chicago by students protesting the Hamas/Israel war. How about focusing instead on the antidemocratic extremists who speak at the Republican convention to renominate Trump? We shouldn’t fear this debate. We should welcome it.

To help you wake up on a warm Tuesday, watch and listen to the late Peter Green, former guitarist of Fleetwood Mac, play “Albatross”, originally from FM’s 1969 album “The Pious Bird of Good Omen”. Here Green plays it with the Peter Green Splinter Group in England in 2003:

The late, great BB King said of Peter Green: “He’s the only white guy to ever make me sweat.”

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Author: wrongologist

Status Update: Ukraine/Russia War

Remembering The 1960s

Oops, Boeing Does It Again

Americans Have No Idea How Deep Our Illiberal Roots Are

Can We Make Billionaires Pay More Taxes?

Should Dems Worry About Students Disrupting Their Convention?