Dear Progressive Reader,
Donald Trump shocked many on Wednesday during a White House press conference when he refused to commit to accepting the results of November’s election. When asked “will you commit to making sure there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election?” The President responded “Well, we’re gonna have to see what happens.” This was not the first time Trump has raised this specter. In the final debate of the 2016 presidential contest, Trump was asked by moderator Chris Wallace: “Will you make the . . . commitment that you will absolutely accept the results of this election?” Trump replied, “I will look at it at the time.” Wallace pressed, “Are you saying that you are not prepared now to commit to that principal?” “What I am saying,” candidate Trump repeated, “is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.” Wallace will again moderate a debate between Trump and his Democratic rival, this time Joe Biden, on September 29, so we will see if he asks the question again.
But in Wednesday’s press conference, Trump may have given even more hints regarding his attitude toward voting. “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very peaceful [pause], there won’t be a transfer frankly, there’ll be a continuation,” he said. Most media have assumed that he was referring to mail-in ballots, which he has regularly decried (with no evidence) as being fraught with problems. However, he actually did not specify “mailed ballots” in the statement. Calling for “getting rid of the ballots” was eerily reminiscent of his 2018 speech to donors at Mar-a-Lago, where in reference to Chinese ruler Xi Jin Ping’s recent move to make himself “president for life,” Trump said, “look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day.”
Trump is certainly clear, however, that our current laws do not allow for such a thing, but he seems to be lining up a series of chess moves that he believes might accomplish the same end. Earlier on September 23, the President told reporters, “I think this [election] will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it's very important that we have nine justices.” To this end, he is moving as quickly as he can to fill the seat made vacant by the tragic death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Writing in a nationally distributed op-ed on Monday, editor Bill Lueders declared, “If our democracy is going to survive, in any meaningful sense, Trump and the Republicans must not be allowed to pick her successor to the U.S. Supreme Court — unless they win the next election. . . . This is a moment that will test our character as a nation because the right course of action is so clear.”
Justice Ginsburg was honored this week as the first woman to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol. But, while well-deserved, this honor says much about a lack in our system of leadership. Why have there not been more women honored in this way? The Capitol Architect’s website reads: “Any person who has rendered distinguished service to the nation may lie in state if the family so wishes and Congress approves.” Why then has no other woman received this honor? And why are there so few women in public office in our government? As U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin noted in her speech on the anniversary of the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote, “Women are half the population, we should be half of our nation’s government too.”
Most of the media coverage also omitted the fact that previously (in 2005) Rosa Parks had laid in honor in the Capitol (lying in state is reserved for government officials, Rosa Parks was a citizen activist). I wrote to The New York Times to complain of this historic omission, noting, “the author neglected to mention the fact that, although not called ‘lying in state,’ the honor given to Rosa Parks in 2005 was also significant. The Capitol Architect's webpage reads: ‘Following her death on October 24, 2005, she was accorded the rare tribute of having her remains lie in honor in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in recognition of her contribution to advancing civil and human rights.’ While ‘lying in honor’ and ‘lying in state’ are two different forms of recognition,” I continued, “most readers may not make that distinction. I certainly think it would have been appropriate to mention Parks in this article.” As of this writing, the Times has yet to add the missing mention.
Working at a magazine with more than a century of history under its belt affords me the opportunity to dig into the archives and see how different struggles and movements have been covered over the years. This past week brought me to open the December 1973 issue of The Progressive, and re-read the “Comment” which began, “Crisis. The word has been overworked by all of us, and particularly by those engaged in reporting, analyzing, and interpreting the news. . . . But the crisis that grips America today is of another, higher magnitude—one that deserves, perhaps, a new term that has not been eroded by abuse. It swirls, of course, around the person of the President of the United States, but it impinges on every facet of the national life and character. We are confronted, suddenly and dramatically, with fundamental questions about our national community—questions that demand swift and decisive answers. Are we prepared, after almost 200 years, to abandon our experiment—intermittently successful but always hopeful—in enlightened self-government?”
On September 29, I will be conducting a (virtual) on stage conversation with author Sarah Chayes about her new book, On Corruption in America: and what is at stake. The event, a part of the 2020 Wisconsin Book Festival, is available live on the Internet beginning at 7 p.m. Central Time. In the book, which takes a deep dive into the history of corruption and the role money in fostering kleptocracies, Chayes writes, “Trump . . . is at once a symptom—a kind of apotheosis—of America’s increasingly corrupt system, and an exaggeration of it so extreme as to seem like a gross aberration, like reality distorted by one of those fun-house mirrors.” Please join us for a lively discussion.
Keep reading, and we will keep bringing you important articles on these and other issues of our time.
Sincerely,
Norman Stockwell
Publisher
P.S – our new 2021 Hidden History of the United States calendar is now available for purchase through our website. They make great gifts and hang well on walls and refrigerators.
P.P.S. – If you don’t already subscribe to The Progressive in print or digital form, please consider doing so today. Also, if you have a friend or relative that you feel should hear from the many voices for progressive change with our pages, please consider giving a gift subscription. Also, if you know someone who you think would enjoy receiving this free weekly email newsletter, please share this link with them to subscribe — https://tiny.cc/ProgressiveNewsletter — it is free, and I enjoy writing it every Saturday morning.
P.P.P.S. – We need you now more than ever. Please take a moment to support hard-hitting, independent reporting on issues that matter to you. Your donation today will keep us on solid ground and will help us continue to grow in the coming years. You can use the wallet envelope in the current issue of the magazine, or click on the “Donate” button below to join your fellow progressives in sustaining The Progressive as a voice for peace, social justice, and the common good.
|
|
