Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Take Back Our Lives

There is evil in our land. Men with power, put in office to protect us, lie and scheme to benefit themselves. They conspire to pollute our air and our water and our food, to put poisons in the products we use every day. They ignore the law, and use their money and power to corrupt our court system. They attack the tellers of truth, the reporters of reality, and substitute fictions for the facts of their deeds. They pervert our democracy to keep themselves in power. They seek out sycophants to do their dirty work, never lacking for toadies who sing their praises, embellish their lies, defend their attacks on the general welfare, and pretend that heaven blesses their immorality. Every day brings new evidence of their malice toward the people they have sworn to serve, their disdain for those who do not join them. They rely on distractions, count on our apathy, and believe they can exhaust us.

They are powerful and clever, but we can stop them. We cannot wait for others to defeat them, we must take action now. We must defend the virtues they scorn – solidarity, empathy, honesty, kindness, charity, justice.

Use the laws to confront their dishonesty. Use the press to uncover and trumpet their corruption. Use our speech to protest loudly and repeatedly. Object to their actions each day in every way we can. We must employ the gifts that our democratic system provides to defeat them, or that system itself will be debased.

They will fight back, lying about anyone who exposes them, attacking our truthfulness, our patriotism, our families. There is no limit to their viciousness. They have billions of dollars, but we have millions of voices. Use them.

By resisting their evil, we will rediscover our nation and ourselves.

Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
October 29, 2019

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

As I See China

China has become America’s great rival for world leadership. Since the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union nearly 30 years ago, China has become the second superpower. For the first time, China’s government is trying to extend its power across the globe, notably with its Belt and Road initiative to accomplish infrastructure projects in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and even Latin America. I am spending two weeks in China in connection with my research and writing about Jewish refugees from the Nazis who survived in Shanghai, so perhaps it’s useful to write some superficial impressions of what I see here. I emphasize superficial, because I am not equipped to write about China as an expert. I have not studied Chinese history, and can say only “hello” and “thank you”. I can write about what I see on the surface of life in the two great eastern Chinese cities I am visiting, Shanghai and Nanjing.

China used to fall into the category of “less developed countries”, but no more. Technologically, China has moved past the US in many ways, benefitting from later development. That is apparent in everything connected with transportation. Both Nanjing and Shanghai have highly modern subway systems, putting to shame the antiquated subways in New York and Boston that I know well. Everything underground is sleek and new. The subway trains are clean and comfortable, with electronic maps in each car displaying your movement through the stops on the particular subway line. Like many internal airport train systems, a barrier separates passengers from the tracks and double sets of doors open when the train stops. The ride is smooth. The unavoidable video screens which characterize 21st-century life advertise things I don’t understand in every car.

Between cities, high-speed trains criss-cross the country. Our train from Shanghai to Nanjing reached 180 miles per hour, more than four times the speed of the St. Louis to Chicago train that I know well. Even more than in America, the cell phone dominates daily life. The Chinese use their phones to pay for many, possibly most transactions.

One of the most important elements of modern Chinese development has been the construction of housing for a population of over 1.4 billion. While clusters of high-rise apartment buildings have gone out of style in America, they dominate the urban skylines here. Groups of 10 to 15 narrow buildings, between 10 and 20 stories high are everywhere in Chinese cities. As we whizzed past many cities on the train, we also saw many clusters of smaller residential buildings, 2 to 4 stores high, many appearing older. In the space of a generation, hundreds of millions of people have moved from rural poverty to modern urban apartments, and construction of thousands of such complexes continues at an amazing pace. I cannot comment on the quality of these buildings or the dwellings within them.

Certainly life is much less technologically advanced in vast rural stretches of China, but that is true in America as well.

Advanced technology enables advanced surveillance, and the Chinese government is extremely security conscious. As we made our way from the airport to our hotel, we were photographed many times. TSA-like security systems checked tickets and luggage at the train station, and all packages and handbags are scanned as one enters the subway. Uniformed guards patrol each subway station and tourist site. There are cameras everywhere.

The attempt to observe and control everyone’s movements is enforced by the requirement to apply for a visa to enter China. We had to apply for visas for this trip, which are available only at the few American cities with Chinese consulates, and only in person. In practice, this means that most people acquire visas by delegating the task to a handful of companies which collect applications and passports by mail, get the visas, and mail them back. That cost us over $500, split between the consulate and the company. Considering that millions of people visit China every year, this might be a big money-maker, but it also requires enormous bureaucratic investment to process every application. I would guess it’s more about control than revenue.

This article lacks some specifics, because I could not easily access Google’s search engine while in China. The government blocks Google and other international websites as a means of controlling the information that its people can see. News about the protests in Hong Kong does not show up on the screens which are everywhere. The Chinese government is creating what might be the world’s most ubiquitous and advanced surveillance society.

On the train, recorded announcements warned of the rules against smoking, with the threat of black marks on a person’s “credit”, which might prevent future use of the train system. We could understand these announcements because English translations are provided everywhere in urban China. Ads in shops, menus, museum exhibits, food labels, street signs, and public announcements are offered in English, not always grammatically correct, but easily understood. No other language is offered. As in many countries, English words appear on articles of clothing favored by young and old alike, as well as familiar logos, like the NY for the New York Yankees. Only a minority of people can speak English, even in big hotels and other tourist sites, but it is usually possible to get around without understanding any Chinese.

As in every authoritarian society, national pride and strength are dominant themes of public life. Our visit coincided with the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in October 1949, so we experienced a heightened display of nationalism, as was true in America in July 1976. A gigantic banner celebrating the 70th anniversary dominated the central waiting hall of the Shanghai train station, and Chinese flags were displayed outside every shop in the station. Video screens on the airport train moving passengers among the terminals show many images of well-scrubbed adults and children waving flags.

Chinese nationalism is closely connected with the cult of the leader, a continuous theme of Chinese history. In Nanjing, the capital of various Chinese dynasties, enormous mausoleums of long-dead emperors are scattered on the Purple Mountain on the edge of town. Many of these structures took much longer to build than the reigns of the emperors they housed. Looming above them all is a remarkable tribute to the man who led China into the more democratic modern age in the early 20th century, Dr. Sun Yat-sen: hundreds of steps lead up to his mausoleum from a theme park at the base of the hill. Mao Tse-tung used a personality cult to inculcate a Chinese form of communism over decades of his rule. Those who followed him at the head of the Chinese Communist Party have not tried to recreate the veneration of Mao as all-wise and all-knowing, but the current leader Xi Jinping is presented through modern media as everyone’s kindly, if stern, father figure.

The immense improvement of daily life during my lifetime in a gigantic country renowned for poverty when the Communists took over has created deep reservoirs of patriotism and allegiance to an undemocratic political system. As a tourist, the lack of democracy is not noticeable. People here seem happy and free to travel, work, and consume. Their living standards are far beyond what older Chinese experienced when they were young, and continue to improve.

On the surface, Chinese urban society flourishes. People are pleasant, friendly, and seemingly happy. The streets are clean and crime does not seem to be a problem. The lack of democracy and the restrictions on freedom are not apparent to the superficial visitor. I would need to know much more to understand what this means to the average Chinese citizen.

Steve Hochstadt
Nanjing, China
October 22, 2019

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Defending Trump


Donald Trump has a defense. There is a case to be made that the discussions he initiated with people in Ukraine should not lead to impeachment. Let’s imagine that defense. Maybe there is another phone call, shortly after July 25, where Trump tells Zelensky that there is no link between our relationship to Ukraine and their investigating Biden. Maybe there is evidence that what looks plainly like efforts coerce Ukraine’s gas system for personal gain by Trump’s envoys to Ukraine didn’t happen that way.

Maybe one could argue that Trump didn’t mean what he said to Zelensky. That would hard, though, given that he also said it to the Australian Prime Minister and to all of China. Or better, that he was completely ignorant of this law, because of his only distant contact with the rules of his office. Trump has demonstrated ignorance of many important aspects of his job, but to call this an honest mistake requires one to ignore everything that happened afterward. Maybe there were conversations in the White House about how to correct this mistake. We don’t know of any.

Right now that case is entirely theoretical, because the evidence we already have does point to impeachment. Many important people in the White House were appalled by the whole process around the fateful phone call, which seem to contain clear evidence of a crime. We know the major task of numerous White House officials was to hide evidence of the contents of this call.

Such plausible and implausible defenses are possible. It is striking that no Republicans are making them.

The Washington Post has usefully published statements from every Republican Senator who would say anything. Zero support the impeachment inquiry. Perhaps the best clue to Republican thinking about Trump is that none of them are offering any evidence, any argument, any reason. Instead, we hear two versions of the same non-defense, that there is no evidence of anything like a crime.

The first version is that what Trump said on the phone with Zelensky was fine, or as Trump says, “perfect”. Sen. Thom Tillis from North Carolina: “The transcript debunks the Democrats’ false claims against President @realDonaldTrump and demonstrates that their call to impeach him is a total farce.” Sen. John Cornyn from Texas: “We have the transcript of the call which doesn’t live up to the complaintant’s fevered accusations.”

Another version of this defense is that it was unfortunate that Trump said what he said, but not very serious. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota: “I’m not a fan of the way in many cases the president goes about this and I would prefer he would not raise an issue like that with a foreign leader.” Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio: “He should not have brought up the Joe Biden issue, but again, there was no quid pro quo and I think the Democrats’ rush to impeachment is totally unwarranted.” This qualifies as courage among Republicans.

Usually this line is combined with attacks on Democrats and the media for even considering the issue. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma: “I think they’ve been looking for a way to impeach the president for years. I think they’re upset with him politically.” Sen. Todd Young of Indiana: “One thing is clear, the far-left has been desperate to get rid of President Trump since day one.” Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas: “Democrats have long sought to weaken the president, appease their base and further divide the country through impeachment. This latest action demonstrates their willingness to blindly follow this obsession regardless of the facts.”

The most radical formulation attacks the whistleblower personally. Trump leads this “defense”. He said, “I think a whistleblower should be protected, if the whistleblower is legitimate.” He labelled the “so-called whistleblower” part of a “political hack job.” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the whistleblower's identity should be revealed.

A second version was displayed by Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa. When a CNN reporter asked her whether it’s appropriate for a president to solicit campaign assistance from a foreign power, she responded, “We’ll have to wait. We don’t have the facts in front of us. And what we see pushed out through the media, we don’t know what is accurate at this point.” A questioner at a meeting in her home state said, “When are you guys going to say, “Enough”? You stand there in silence.” She responded helpfully, “Whistle-blowers should be protected. Corruption wherever it is should be ferreted out.”

This “we don’t know yet” version says that what we do know about the call and Trump’s other actions is not enough. Sen. Tim Scott from South Carolina: “He’s not really a whistleblower, so it’s really more hearsay.” Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho: “I will wait for further information regarding the facts of this matter and refrain from speculating.” Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado: “I joined my Senate colleagues in unanimously supporting the release of the whistleblower report, and I support the Senate Intelligence Committee’s on-going bipartisan review to gather all of the facts. Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry to appease the far-left isn’t something the majority of Americans support and will sharply divide the country.” But Gardner’s wrong: a majority of Americans do now support the inquiry. A poll from a week ago found 55% supported an impeachment inquiry.

Only a very few Republican Senators have taken the evidence we all have seen seriously. Mitt Romney of Utah appears to be leading those who are most anxious: “It remains troubling in the extreme. It’s deeply troubling.” Susan Collins of Maine remains true to her pretense at independence: “I thought the president made a big mistake by asking China to get involved in investigating a political opponent. It’s completely inappropriate.” What about Ukraine?

Republicans have been running away from evidence about Donald Trump since 2016. Evidence about his business dealings, evidence about his lying, evidence about his sexual attacks on many unwilling women, evidence about the climate, evidence from the Mueller probe. They and Trump together are trying to achieve a new normal, in which evidence doesn’t matter at all, only what side you are on.

The last time a Republican was impeached for trying to tamper with a presidential election and then covering it up, that strategy didn’t work.

Before anyone can make a good judgment about breaking rules, we have to know the rules. Does a certain behavior fall outside of the law? It doesn’t matter if you don’t know the rules. Ignorance of the law is no defense, says the Bible, Greek philosophers, and Roman law. Republicans are following a different motto: “I’ll tell you what is legal and what is not legal later, when I find out more about what Trump did.”

That’s not leadership. That’s not responsibility. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That’s corruption.

Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
October 15, 2019

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Trump Impeachment


It’s useless to try not to talk about impeachment. It’s nearly impossible to avoid bringing it up. Running away from impeachment conversations doesn’t mean the conversation in your head will stop. So I’ll join in.

First, the national conversation is about Trump, and that’s not an accident. For a while, we heard and thought and talked about the Democratic candidates for President. They all talked about Trump, but that was only a small part of their message. Trump demands to be the lead in every news report, and now he is and will be for weeks, if not all the way to November 2020. He didn’t impeach himself just to top the news, but it’s a welcome outcome for him.

The impeachment inquiry came about because Trump cannot distinguish between his own personal interests and the interests of the US. He never had a job where he had to think about anything but his own welfare. As a businessman, he was a constant public disservice, forcing people to sue him because he discriminated against black renters, stiffed the construction workers who built his buildings, and cheated the students who enrolled in “Trump University”. His narcissistic personality makes it difficult for him to think about anything but himself in any situation. So it made sense for him to subordinate American foreign policy towards Ukraine, Australia, and China to his worries about his electoral chances against Joe Biden.

His thinking is dominated by certain fixed ideas, which reason, evidence, and argument cannot budge. He enlisted the Vice President, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General in his pursuit of a Ukraine conspiracy theory, which hardly anyone has heard of outside of radical right media, because it has no substance. Thomas Bossert, Trump’s first homeland security adviser, told him it was nonsense, but no person or group of persons can talk him out of these obsessions. Long after it was definitively proven that Obama was born in Hawaii, Trump continued to say he believed in his own lies.

The obsessions are about his exaggerated beliefs in his success and refusal to believe in any failure. He can’t stand the fact that he lost the popular vote to Clinton by 3 million votes. So he embraces one explanation after another, not based on anything more than his wishful thinking – first millions of undocumented people illegally voted for Clinton, now Ukraine plus the “deep state” secretly helped Clinton’s campaign and tried to pretend that Russia was helping Trump.

His political opinions are not convictions but malleable positions, depending on his interests and the moment. He has no fundamental beliefs except himself. That is evident from his changing positions on abortion, Democrats, and gay rights. Who jumps to the opposite side on every major issue of political culture?

He has no empathy or respect for people outside of his family. His family might be able to impress him with reasoned criticism, but they don’t because they are like him, putting self before any principle. More than any other group of people, their future is tied to his success or failure.

The American President presents the dangerous combination of absolute confidence that he is always right and always knows best, and a brain filled with nonsensical ideas. He commits impeachable offenses every day.

I don’t think that impeachment will get Trump out of the White House. There are not 20 Republican Senators who have the courage and patriotism to enforce the national interest when it might mean they lose an election. They share Trump’s ranking of their own political fortunes over any constitutional duty.

I think what matters is whether some Republicans in the House vote to impeach and some Republicans in the Senate vote to convict. In recent days, the first Republican dissenters have spoken out, led by Mitt Romney. Thus far, Senators Romney, Ben Sasse, and Susan Collins have openly criticized Trump. Republicans Will Hurd from Texas, Fred Upton of Michigan, and Mark Amodei of Nevada in the House have expressed support for investigating Trump, but are still wary of impeachment. Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle says that “two dozen” of his Republican colleagues in the House are deeply concerned about Trump’s impeachable actions, although few have said anything. The defections from Trump worship may bring out others. This is history, and what each Republican politician does or doesn’t do, says or doesn’t say, will define their legacies.

Unless more Republicans than the few so far show that they believe that he is a menace to our country, the impeachment inquiry will have little effect on the 2020 election. And that is the vote that matters.

Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
October 8, 2019

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

We Don’t Know What We Are Doing



We don’t know what we are doing about poverty. The Great Society programs reduced the poverty rate during the 1960s from 22% to 12%, but since 1970, rates of poverty in the US have remained between 10% and 15%. The proportion of children living in poverty is higher, perhaps as high as 21%. The poverty rate in the US is higher than nearly all other highly developed countries, and about twice as high as most countries in western Europe. The wide variety of federal and state programs for the poor have simply managed to maintain poverty rates at the same level for 50 years. Our policy-makers, Democrat and Republican, have been tinkering around the edges of poverty, but have not found a set of policies which can make an impact. Raising the minimum wage significantly, say to $15 an hour, would slightly reduce poverty, but not eliminate it.

We don’t know what we are doing about homelessness. Since the great recession of 2008, homelessness has dropped slightly in the US from about 650,000 to 550,000 in 2016, as poverty levels, the main cause of homelessness, fell. Since 2016, homelessness has again risen.

We don’t know what we are doing about the invasion of our lives by the internet. Misinformation and disinformation, transferred to us instantaneously and constantly, pollute our brains. Young people are not only addicted to their phones, for too many their ambitions are entirely tied up in hopes of becoming “influencers” in virtual space. Impenetrable corporations demand to know our private information, and then collect, exploit and sell it.

We don’t know what we are doing about climate change. Scientific experts warn us about how much damage we have already done to the environment by lifestyles that few people are willing to change. Rising temperatures in the earth’s oceans have already caused irreparable damage to aquatic life and to the human lives that depend on it. No nation has put into place policies that are sufficient to eliminate further warming. No scientific warning has been able to move enough people to demand the changes that are necessary. Nearly half of Americans continue to vote for a party which officially denies that climate change is a problem.

We don’t know what we are doing about the corruption of our society and our politics by money. This is nothing new. Despite centuries of agonizing about how to prevent those with money from amassing the power to suck up more money through illegitimate means, in democratic and authoritarian societies, we are no closer to a solution.

We don’t know what we are doing about the widening social chasms, the hollowing out of the middle, the growing anger, not just at the system or “the man”, but at each other.

We don’t know what we are doing about the linkage among all these problems. For the millennia that humans have walked the earth, it didn’t matter if we didn’t know what we were doing. The carefully balanced global natural systems that supported an incredible variety of life were impervious to the local activities of bands of humans. But now, with nearly 8 billion people digging up the earth, consuming everything we can get our hands on, spewing waste in every direction, and accelerating the speeds of these processes every day, we have thrown the earth out of balance. As our world apparently hurtles toward ecological, political, and social disaster, we have created problems for which there are no solutions in sight.

Now is the tipping point. And we don’t know what we are doing.

Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
October 1, 2019