Legal, But Not Legitimate

EDMUND

As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

                                     KING LEAR
                                    Act I, Scene 2

     Legitimacy: a word that stalks Donald Trump.  He feels it right behind him and it's why he incessantly scurries to his favorite phrase "no collusion."  It has seeped into his skin and makes him rasp on and on about how "it was a clean campaign, I beat Hilary Clinton easily."  It deflates his ego so he bellows, "We ran a brilliant campaign, and that's why I'm president."

     But the legitimacy of his presidency is more in question now than ever after he groveled before Putin and said, "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia that interfered in the 2016 election.  Politically and legally Trump is president.  But that fact carries little or no weight if the man in the Oval Office has forfeited his moral standing.  And Trump forfeited his when he supported Putin over the American intelligence agencies that have documented the Russian cyber attacks on our democracy.
   
     Fortunately, most Republican leaders in Congress have been honest enough to affirm publicly that they know the Russians under Putin's direction hacked the election.  Unfortunately, they have lacked the courage to admit the possibility that Russian interference might have affected the outcome.  Paul Ryan, for one, stated, "They did interfere in our election--it's really clear.  There should be no doubt about that."  But Ryan also claimed that the interference had no "effect" on the election. Clearly, Ryan wants to "legitimize" Trump's electoral victory.  Nevertheless, his is a conclusion without basis in fact.  With Trump's margin of victory so slim, it is impossible to ignore how many votes might have been delivered into his column with Russia's help.

     Another Republican, Trey Gowdy, remarked that "it is possible to conclude Russia interfered in our election in 2016 without delegitimizing his electoral success."  Even before the news conference with Putin, Trump's legitimacy as president has been corroded by the findings and indictments of the Mueller probe, the suspicious meeting at Trump tower between Don Jr., Paul Manafort and Russians, and the recent 12 indictments of Russians who hacked into the 2016 election.

    Among the information reported from Mueller's indictment is that Russian hackers stole data from the Democratic Party National Committee used to target potential voters for their candidates.  One Republican consultant has already admitted that he received some of this data and used it to help Republican Brian Mast during his 2016 campaign for congress.  One has to suspect that information from these hackers was passed on to the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

     Perhaps we can balance the legitimacy of Trump's presidency on a single adverb--"not."  On Tuesday, Trump stiffened his back, folded his arms and tried erase what he said Monday about believing Putin over America's intelligence agencies.  He simply forgot to insert the word "not," in "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia.  Of course, he spoke more about there not being any "collusion" between his campaign and the Russians.

     A child who insults a friend then claims that's "not" what he meant, might believe the lie he uses to squirm his way out of trouble.  I don't know if Trump believes his own lie (and lies); most of America does not.  The Republican party, if it is to salvage its own legitimacy, has to repudiate this "base" man who, though still has the legal authority to occupy the White House, has "not" any moral legitimacy to remain as president.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Trump

     In the film, "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, Control, who is head of MI 6, wants to uncover which of his four colleagues is actually a mole planted by the Russians at the top of British Intelligence.  He sends an agent, Jim Prideaux, to Hungary to meet with an Hungarian general who knows the name of the spy, but Control's plan is foiled by his Russian intelligence nemesis, Karla.  

     Watching the film's byzantine plot, which has driven some viewers to theatre exits well before the movie's conclusion, we learn that Bill Hayden, the number two official in British Intelligence, has long ago been "turned" by the Russians into a double agent working on their behalf.   And although it seems implausible that such a plot could unfold in real life, we have been observing an analogous, though contorted, storyline nevertheless produce a disturbing correlative.   To wit: the news conference in Finland where Trump defended Putin and Russia's hacking of the 2016 election.

     Unlike Bill Hayden, who was only an official in Britain's spy agency, the Russians have managed to insert their mole at the very top of the United States Government, President Trump.  Fantastic as this may sound, the evidence has been mounting for two years and today it rose to the level of a national-security emergency.  

     Anyone watching that conference couldn't help but be astonished by Trump's flagrant contradiction of U.S. intelligence reports documenting with overwhelming factual evidence Russia's interference in the 2016 election.  Yet, Trump stood at the podium and announced that "I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia who hacked the election.  When pressed by reporters whether he believed Putin or America's intelligence agencies, Trump replied that there are "two thoughts" about the hacking, and then he shifted the topic to one of his favorite bogyman, Hilary Clinton's "missing" emails.    

     Trump's performance in Finland followed his attacking America's European allies the previous week.  He criticized Germany, claiming that country "is captive to Russia," faulted Theresa May on her handling of Brexit, and stated that the European Union is a foe of the United Sates.  All this while he remained silent on Russia's aggression against Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, the poisoning of British citizens and the cyber attacks on the United States' election.  

     Putin must be smiling broadly these days back at the Kremlin.  He's achieved more than the villain Karla in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" could have dreamt of in his machinations against the West.  He's inserted his man at the pinnacle of the most powerful country on earth.  Now the rest of us will have to wait and see if the party Trump leads will have the honesty and courage to foil Putin's success and remove the Russia mole from the White House.  

Republican Values

     Ohio Representative Jim Jordan has a lot on his mind this week of July Fourth, and it's not the eloquent virtues penned in the Declaration of Independence.  Allegations that he knew of sexual harassment and abuse of Ohio State University wrestlers while he was an assistant coach there are biting at his heels.  He denies he knew about the harassment or abuse and asserts that if he had, he would have taken action to protect his athletes.

     Luckily for him, the  President of the United States has come to his defense.  Donald Trump believes Jim Jordan.  He believes his claims that he was unaware of any sexual harassment or abuse during his time at Ohio State.   And if Trump says it, then it must be true: "Jim Jordan is one of the most outstanding people I've met since I've been in Washington.  I believe him 100 percent.  No question in my mind."

     But what of the men who say Jordan did know?  They say everyone, including Jordan, knew about the sexual harassment by voyeurs lurking at the Ohio State University sport's facility and the sexual abuse of wrestlers by the university doctor, Richard Strauss.  Are they all lying?  Or are they, as Jordan purports, part of a "deep state" conspiracy determined to bring him down because of his "honest" search for the truth in questioning Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein?

     This is the classic tale of sexual assaults and the astonishing moral torpidity of the grownups who know all about it yet pretend they don't.  We saw this pattern with Joe Paterno and the vile monster Jerry Sandusky.  Paterno's willingness to ignore the rape of young boys stretches beyond the bounds of human understanding and forgiveness.  Like Paterno, Jordan claims that he knew nothing.  Given the number of men who have said Jordan did know makes his assertion of "ignorance" less than credible. 

     Throughout his political career, Jim Jordan has styled himself as a conservative purist.  Conservative on taxes, immigration, the military (which means spending taxpayer's money on unneeded tanks), on the environment (which means allowing corporations to poison the planet), and, of course, conservative on protecting Donald Trump.  He is among those who have led the fight to discredit the Mueller investigation.  Jordan is so loyal to Trump that when asked by Anderson Cooper if he had ever heard Trump lie, Jordan answered that he had not, despite the almost four thousand lies Trump has told since being in office.  

     One expects members of both political parties to be partisan; to frequently stretch facts to fit the narratives they wish to promote.  However, as the tally of lies Trump has told continues to grow, it becomes ludicrous to deny that Trump has ever told a lie, and such a statement by Jordan makes one suspect he too possesses no regard for the truth.  But I guess that's what makes them simpatico.  And like Trump, Jordan continues to receive unwavering support from his Republican base.  That support tells us a great deal about the character of those supporters.  However, in the contest for truth between him and his former wrestlers, Jordan, I afraid, is pinned to the mat.

*********************************************************************************

     While sordidness and sheer dishonesty cling to one of the foremost republican members, on the democratic side of the political aisle a fresh face has emerged to inspire hope for the November elections.  In a New York primary, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trounced Joe Crowley, the fourth ranking Democrat who was said to be in line for Nancy Pelosi's leadership position.

     After upsetting the highly favored Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez encountered a less than warm reception from fellow Democrats and the expected disdain from Republicans.  Nancy Pelosi dismissed that Ocasio-Cortez's victory as insignificant and limited to "just one district."  Tammy Duckworth, commenting on the primary results said, "I think that you can't win the White House without the Midwest, and I think you can go too far to the left and still win the Midwest."

     Of course, conservatives have expressed disdain and revulsion for Ocasio-Cortez because she is a Democratic Socialist.  Conservative Bret Stephens of The New York Times presented a more balanced analysis of what he fears her candidacy will produce come November, which he has called "political hemlock for the Democratic Party."  Even though Stephens is a conservative, he is afraid that Ocasio-Cortez's political positions will drive the Democrats too far left and thereby hand Trump congressional wins in the fall that could prevent his impeachment.  But what are the policies that Ocasio-Cortez supports which these liberals and conservatives label as too far left to be political feasible?

     Ocasio-Cortez believes in "health care as a human right."  She believes that "every child no matter where you are born should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it."  She believes that "no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States."

     Mainstream liberals such as Pelosi and Duckworth are frightened about being labeled too liberal; and the word "socialist" seems to terrify them.  Conservative, on the other hand, cringed at the slightest notion that government can serve the American people with programs to lessen some of life's hardships.  It's what makes them scorn Ocasio-Cortez's political views.  Ocasio-Cortez's identifies herself as a Democratic Socialist.  But as she herself explains, that label is not what matters most.  What matters to her are the values she believes need to be essential in serving as a representative in Congress.  She puts it succinctly: Being a Democratic Socialist is "part of what I am; it's not all of what I am...and I think that's a very important distinction...I'm not truing to impose an ideology on all several hundred members of Congress...It's not about selling an 'ism' or an ideology or a label or a color.  This about selling values."

     As Ocasio-Cortez says, she is not interested in imposing her beliefs on anyone else.  Her aim is to present her views and try to persuade fellow Democrats and members of the other party that her values, and therefore policies, have merit.  If they accept her ideas and support them, so be it.  If not, she will continue her best to convince them of the merit of her beliefs and values without resorting to demagoguery.

     And that's what it all comes down  to: Which party has the values that will best serve the country and the planet?  The Republicans, who value corporate profits and greed above all else, including the health of new born babies (See "U.S. Officials Opposition to Breast-Feeding Stuns World Health Officials")? Or Democrats such as Ocasio-Cortez, who know that profits and wealth don't measure the real health and prosperity of a country and a world.  When Ocasio-Cortez wins her seat in the fall, the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans will become even more conspicuous and important.  Let's hope her victory becomes a watershed election in the history of American politics.

Independence Day

     This week celebrates the anniversary of the country's Declaration of Independence.  Cold beer, hot dogs and burgers sizzling on grills, fireworks sparkling in the night sky, and flags fluttering will remind everyone how great America is.  But there are many who are feeling sick about America's future, especially with Anthony Kennedy's plan to retire.

     Kennedy's retirement and the prospect of an even more conservative justice sitting on the Supreme Court certainly adds to the oppression the current heat wave is spreading across the northeast.  Yet, even when Kennedy was on the Court, workers in America suffered setbacks to their rights.

     Earlier in the Court's term, the conservative justices, including Kennedy, decided in favor of businesses when they sided with Epic Systems Corp. against Lewis, ruling that businesses can require employees to use a company's arbitration process rather than having to litigate disputes in individual or class action lawsuits.  Now corporations can avoid the legal system and conceal any abuse against workers, limiting the public scrutiny lawsuits would have exposed them to.

     This case parallels earlier ones that upheld corporations' right to force consumers into resolving their claims against businesses through an individual arbitration process set up by a given corporation.  These clauses effectually disable workers and consumers from challenging corporations through class action lawsuits, which is their only genuine means of fighting the daunting power of corporations.  Being funneled into an arbitration process that blatantly serves the interests of the employer or the company abolishes what should be every American's inalienable right to seek redress for grievances in a fair legal venue.  When workers have wages stolen or consumers suffer from fraudulent business practices they are limited to an arbitration hearing that is the same as having chickens guarded by foxes.

      Another setback for workers is the Janus Decision.  Once again, Kennedy joined his fellow conservatives and ruled in favor of the employer.  Yes, there are those who will argue that Mark Janus had his right to free speech violated when he was compelled to pay the agency fee to the union whose politics he found unpalatable.  The public union to whom he submitted that "fee" should have released him from any financial obligation and let him negotiate his employment contract individually.  It would have been interesting to see if he continued to accrue the equivalent salary and benefits had he been on his own.

     In any case, the real substance of this Supreme Court decision reflects the intended consequence those conservative justices envision.  Like their fellow conservatives in congress and like Trump, these men believe that rights and privileges naturally belong to those in positions of power.  Workers and consumers are of little consequence when measured against the magnates of American business.  They are necessary to churn the engine of the economy, but they need to remain relegated to their appropriate station in the American scheme. Or is that American dream?  Happy Independence Day.

Trump Wants It White

     At this point in time it's simple to see what drives Trump's statements reflecting his immigration impulses.  I would say policy, but that would suggest that there is a policy.  What Trump has in mind is to stem the inevitable changing demographics of the United Sates.  The white majority is decreasing; the non-white population increasing.  For him, and others like him, this change signals not just a tinting of pigmentation, but the eradication of American and Western culture.

     To get a full view of what Trump fears as he envisions hordes of Hispanics flooding across the southern border one just has to listen to and read what Pat Buchanan (A Nixon unrepentant supporter) has to say on the subject.  Last week on "The Laura Ingraham Show," Buchanan expressed in the clearest terms what he feels is at stake: "This is the great issue of our time.  And, the real question is whether Europe has the will and the capacity, and America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character - political, social, racial, ethnic of the country entirely."

     Rather than lamenting the cruel separation of children from their parents, Buchanan dredges up the old racist canard that migrants (foreigners) endanger the purity of a country's culture.  In his language one even hears echoes of Germany in the 1930's, within his use of the word, "will."  One wonders what inspires Buchanan to see these obviously desperate people who are either seeking asylum or escaping extreme poverty as a threat to the culture of America.  Perhaps fear; perhaps malice.  In a blog he wrote shortly before his interview with Ingraham he stated his approval of Trump's grasp of the migrant problem: "Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of the issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.  But on the mega-issue--the third world invasion of the West--he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future."

     For Buchanan, nothing less than the survival of "our civilization" is at stake.  Buchanan has spouted similar anti-immigrant rhetoric before against the "Islamic invasion" of Europe.  And while there is no doubt Europe has had difficulty assimilating some of the Muslims who settled there, most have integrated quite well into their new countries.  As wrong as he is about the cultural calamity he foresees as a result of migrants settling in Europe, Buchanan's analysis of the effects migrants from Latin American countries will have on the United States couldn't be more inaccurate.

     When Buchanan and Trump descry the adverse effects of migrants coming across the border, they ignore important facts or "truths" concerning who these people are and what they have to contribute to the United States.  Research has established that more than  anything else, those who come to America provide needed labor for American businesses.  And although the initial strain on public resources that migrants place on local community schools and health services, these parents and their children, over time, give back in taxes more than they take from the system.

     As to the threat migrant currently crossing the border pose, Buchanan might observe more closely the American culture and character he fears will be destroyed by these "non-whites."  These invaders threatening American culture are in fact more closely aligned with the most rooted cultural practice of the West-religion.  The overwhelming majority are Christians, with most professing to be Catholic.  For a Catholic such as Buchanan, one would think he'd welcome more Catholics, given his history of animus against Muslims.

      And what of this "western culture" Buchanan believes will be extinguished by the presence of these invaders?  Western culture?  Where?  Does he fear for the fate of the American cultural "hegemony" that dominates the globe with its hip-hop music, its MacDonald and Starbucks franchises, its movies?  Those who migrate to the United States already have absorbed our culture; they arrive preconditioned to be as American as those of us who have been living here for generations.

     Maybe Buchanan worries that the new arrivals won't be steeped in the writings of the founding fathers.  Then again, he should look around and discover that most Americans possess very little knowledge or understanding of the Enlightenment tenets upon which the country was founded.  But they have what matters most: white skin.

A Lifetime's Characterization in Just One Day

     Before Trump was elected, Americans got a preview of what a Trump presidency might look like.  Here was a man who issued racial slurs, ridiculed the handicapped and maligned all his political opponents with vulgar names and descriptions.  His supporters defended him, in part, by asserting he would lose his coarse approach once he became president.  In other words, he would become "presidential."  Or, at least, his white house advisers would reign him in and polish the ragged personality that has always been Trump.

     Five hundred days have passed since his inauguration, during which we have watched as Trump has exaggerated or lied countless times.   But on Friday, (6/15/18), Trump went "all in."  He gave two interviews displaying truly who he is and what he represents.  He answered questions regarding the Inspector General report, his administration's handling of the immigration issue and his meeting with Kim Jong Un.

     His die hard supporters must be very proud.

     While being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, Trump exulted over the results of the I. G. report.  He was thrilled to announce, "If you read the I. G. report, I've been totally exonerated.  There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, and if you read the report you'll see that."

     The only problem with his account is the I. G. report has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Trump's statement is a complete fabrication.  Do his supporters know that?  Do they care?

     Another lie Trump slipped into his exchange with reporters covered the obscene policy of separating migrant children from their parents at the southern border with Mexico.  When asked to justify this cruel policy, Trump blamed the democrats:  "I hate the children being taken away.  The Democrats have to change their law.  That's their law."  Of course, this is a lie.  There is no law requiring children be separated from their parents.  This policy was implemented by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance"  which was initiated in April of this year.

     When it comes to being caught in a lie, many politicians try to wiggle their way out by employing additional subterfuges, which Trump himself has been known to do.  On Friday, Trump tried to justify the misleading statement he dictated about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign that he told to The New York Times as "irrelevant," since he only told it to "the phony, failing New York Times.  That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges.  That's a statement to the phony New York Times."   Trump's logic: you only have to tell the truth if you're under oath in a court; lying to the media, and consequently, the public, is perfectly acceptable for this president.

     Trump also lied on Friday about the length of time Paul Manafort spent as chairman of his campaign and suggested that Michael Flynn did not lie to investigators even though he pleaded guilty to doing just that.  Facts do not distinguish truth from lies; for Trump, his point of view determines what is truth.

     Chuck Todd of Meet The Press captured the magnitude of Trump's "performance": "Today's Potus performance was breathtaking in the sheer number of provable falsehoods, intentional mischaracterizations and outright lies uttered."

     To countenance so many lies and falsehoods, as his base of supporters continually do, must require an extraordinary reservoir of denial or dishonesty on their part.  How else could they continue to hear the lies that infest Trump's daily discourse.  But chronic, habitual lying is actually Trump's second worst personality trait.  Considerably more disturbing for anyone with an allegiance to democracy is Trump's undisguised admiration for dictators.

     This admiration for dictators starkly contrasts with Trump's disdain for America's long standing allies.  Justin Trudeau is "dishonest and weak" and our European allies are being punished by trade tariffs as if they were adversaries.  Yet, for Putin, Duterte and now Kim Jong Un Trump has nothing but praise.  When asked on Fox and Friends about Kim visiting the White House, Trump acknowledged the possibility and added, "Hey, he is the head of a country, and I mean he is the strong head.  Don't let anyone think anything different.  He speaks and his people sit up at attention.  I want mine to do the same."

     What should be clear is Trump's desire to rule as Kim does.  He wants to be unfettered by democratic constitutional checks and balances, free from the rule of law and, most importantly, he wants to be celebrated by the media, rather than judged and, yes, criticized by it.  Instead of exaltation, which Kim's state controlled media lavish on their dictator, Trump is forced to contend with honest reporting about his mendacious and autocratic personality.  If he could only treat the media the way Kim dealt with his uncle who fell asleep during a meeting.  After all, he believes that "Our country's biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools."

     I am sorry to say that it is not the press which is our country's biggest enemy; our biggest enemy is Donald Trump.

Is David Brooks"Woke"?

     A retired New York City police officer, who is a friend of mine, complained recently about the number of young, able-bodied black men and women receiving welfare benefits.  When I suggested that his understanding of why people were on "welfare" ( and who is on welfare: more whites than blacks; more single women than men; more elderly than young) might be inaccurate, he brushed aside my point.  As a policeman he had seen many examples how inner city able-bodied young blacks lived off welfare.  They spent their days lounging on apartment stoops talking and laughing the hours away. He was positive that these individuals took advantage of the system; that if they had the slightest desire to work, they could find jobs and provide for themselves.  In his view, it was laziness that kept them dependent on government support.  He then offered a specific example to illustrate his absolute certainty that he was right.

     He recounted the time some young black mechanics had replaced the tires on his car.  He told me that he had chatted cordially with those men and treated them exactly the same way he would had they been white.  When they had finished, he rewarded them for their excellent service with a generous tip which they deserved for their hard work.   In his mind, his observations of those on welfare in New York together with this anecdote proved conclusively that if able bodied individuals--black or white for that matter--wanted to work, then they would.  The jobs were "out there"; they just had to be willingly to get them.

     The sweeping generalization he arrived at regarding welfare and work reflects a method by which too many of us form opinions about the motives and behavior of other people.  We observe the people around us, note to ourselves what they say and do, then become convinced we know why they act and think as they do.  Once that "understanding" settles in our minds, it thickens and solidifies; it hardens into doctrine.

     This hardening of doctrine features in David Brooks' latest column, "The Problem With Wokeness."  Brooks refers to a comment he made on Meet The Press, in which he said that there is "much less gun violence" in schools than there was in the 1990's.  His remark generated a good deal of "hatred on social media," because, as Brooks claims, he failed to maximize the "size of the problem," and therefore "was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."

     Brooks identifies the criticism of his 'failure' to adequately understand the "size" of the gun violence "problem" as a "mental habit" analogous to the thought process of "wokeness."  The term "woke" "means being aware of racial, gender and economic injustice," or as Brooks puts it, "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" of a practice, condition, environment or situation in American society.

     In other words, in citing data that show fewer school shooting are occurring today, Brooks believes he is being judged not by the accuracy of his facts, but by the "correctness" of his "perception" of gun violence in schools.  Brooks sums up type of thinking (a "frame of mind" he calls it) as follows: "wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing.  In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation--how woke you are to what is wrong--than what exactly you plan to do about it."

     Like the police officer I mentioned above, who knew the motives of every able-bodied black on welfare, Brooks' critics "know" too his motives and summarily denounced him for them.  By condemning his motives, these critics can preemptively enclose Brooks and his ideas in a box which has written on it, "Do not open; point of view invalid."    Rather than engage his argument, it becomes easier to shut him down and thereby ignore what he has to say.  His voice on the subject becomes as empty as the wind and those who are "woke" have silenced someone who, by virtue of his perception of an issue, cannot be "woke."

      It may seem unfair to lump those who are arguing for social justice with the police officer whose perception of how and why young men women receive welfare, food stamps or any public assistance is deduced from images tainted by assumptions coloring his thoughts before they have entered his consciousness.  It is true that some of the men and women he has seen prefer to receive benefits and avoid work.  But on the whole, the statistics indicate a different story.  Therefore, his claim lacks the evidence to construct a cogent position and his argument disintegrates as each word issues from his mouth.

     Brooks' critics, though "like" the police officer, are not identical with him.  Though they judge Brooks a priori, their frustration with Brooks and his complaint that "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see contradictory truths at the same time" is understandable.  And they no doubt think Brooks is at the least rather obtuse when he argues 'that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress not in moments of perceived threat."

     Perhaps his "optimism" isn't the right word or approach.  After all, the "great social reform" that ended slavery, the Civil War, killed some 600,000 Americans.  And the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's sacrificed many lives, including the movement's most loved and important figure--Martin Luther King.

      Near the end of Brooks' essay, he considers the "debate surrounding the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates," for whom, according to Brooks,  "The entire American story was and continues to be based on 'plunder,' the violent crushing of minority bodies.  Even today, 'gentrification' is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy."    Brooks finds fault for Coates seeing the "problem of racism in these "maximalist terms."  Does this view make Brooks un-woke?

     Can one be "woke" and moderate at the same time?  That is the question Brooks would like to answer with a unequivocal "yes."  He believes that "being dispassionate in one's perception of" gun violence or social injustices allows one to fight most successfully against racism or gun violence.  I for one am happy that Ta-Nehisi Coates calls attention to the racism that too many argue no longer exists.  His voice alerts us to the lingering effects of slavery and to those forces today that, intended and unintended, still abuse people of color.  Together, Coates and Brooks provide two prongs that can puncture the propaganda of the Hannitys and Limbaughs, who daily spread lies that warp the minds of far too many, and set a political framework that can counter Trump and his followers who push "alternative facts," argue truth is relevant, and foment division and divisiveness among Americans with Putinesque cunning.