SPLIT SCREEN (Feb. 11, 2018)

I heard a political commentator say that the Trump administration is like looking at a split screen, the healthy economy on the one side and disaster on the other.  Some say this division is bewildering but there’s nothing bewildering about it. Many imagine that Authoritarian governments take over in one fell   swoop.  This is rarely the case; Authoritarianism takes root over time. Some imagine that Authoritarian governments are free to wholly ignore the will of the people. This is also rarely the case; even in a police state, ready compliance is preferred over mere acquiescence. Take communist-era Czechoslovakia for instance:  It was widely understood that there was an implicit pact between the government and the people. In exchange for subservience 5 days a week Czechs had their cottages to go to on weekends, where they were free to tend their gardens, drink beer with family and friends, and generally exhale without being subject to the demands of the State.

Such pacts did not disappear with the end of the Cold War; they endure to this day.  It is widely recognized, for instance, that both the Chinese and Vietnamese communist regimes have implicit pacts with their respective populations; such that it is believed that either would collapse if it failed to provide the unparalleled wealth their respective citizens have become accustomed to in recent years.

I think it’s fair to say that such an implicit pact exists between Trump and the stock holding class, which aptly serves as proxy for those in 21st century America wealthy enough to have actual bargaining power.  In late January the stock market began a period of abrupt declines and wild gyrations.  (As always there is virtually no limit to the explanations for why this occurred at this particular time, though no one seems to be talking about the possibility that it is in essence a no confidence vote on a President who may very well soon be indicted.) How long this will last is anyone’s guess.  Should a major crash occur the jig might  well be up for Trump; the pact would be broken. Of course, arguably of greater concern is what happens if the market doesn’t crash?  The pact in the Czech Republic held firm for 40 years.

Of course, (incremental) loss of freedom and autonomy in exchange for prosperity and convenience is a mostly unconscious choice we make for ourselves every day, whether or not an Authoritarian is in power. The consequences of living under an Authoritarian State versus the daily challenges of living in a post-modern Democratic State are for the most part differences of degree, not of kind; that’s why they’re so easy to conflate and explain away.  If an Authoritarian upon assuming power simply announced that black was white and white was black he would run the risk of being deposed or laughed out of office the first day (as Trump nearly was), but if we allow lies to be excused as exaggeration and embellishment, it is only a matter of time before the government can tell us that white is black and black is white and no one will even notice.

 

 

AUTHORITARIANISM AND TRUMP

No Fascist USA

You don’t have to be an expert on game theory to figure out that the best defense for a liar is to go on the offense and accuse the other side of lying, and so we have the alt right fake news calling the mainstream press: fake news.  This kind of thing has been going on among ill-mannered children from time immemorial, and usually it doesn’t work out very well for the liar as some adult comes along and figures out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. This assumes an adult in the room or, in a slightly different context, a respected functioning free press.  It is no accident that Authoritarian governments reflexively attack the press.  If relativism is taken to an absurdist degree and there is no such thing as facts, truth or agreed upon standards of decency or civility, only opinion, then one opinion is as good as another, and the opinion espoused by government is ultimately the only opinion that matters.

Opposition to such Authoritarianism is unequivocally the battle of our time and last year it was waged on college campuses though various protests against right wing advocates.  Widely criticized by the press – liberal, mainstream and right wing alike – for allegedly bumping up against the first amendment right to free speech, many commentators were intent on piling on and condemning the protests as just one more example of the shortcomings of a coddled generation.  Such critics would infantilize the protesters by suggesting that college is intended as a four-year debating society, nothing more, nothing less.  Surely the debating society analogy is a caricature of college life during the best of times, during times such as these it is irresponsible.

This point of view presupposes that Authoritarianism poses less of an existential threat to America’s well-being than an ill- conceived war 50 years ago, when there is little reason to believe this is true.  Yet who among these critics today would argue that the anti-war activists of the 60s and 70s should have stuck to their knitting and ignored the social issues of their day, though it’s obvious that as principled as the cause against the war may have been, there was self-interest involved as well, and it’s fair to say that the first amendment rights of pro-war speakers were never given a second thought.

Insofar as the 1st amendment is concerned, critics of the protesters give short shrift to the right to assemble (i.e. protest) though it deserves no less consideration than the right to free speech.  While free speech is certainly a principle cornerstone of freedom and democracy, the notion espoused by the alt right that there are no agreed upon facts and everything is just a matter of political interpretation is not the foundation of democracy, but rather the foundation of totalitarianism.   Thus, at the very least, it is ironic for the purveyors of such beliefs to be the benefactors of first amendment protection. But such is not to argue that any speech is immune from first amendment protection; of course, this is not the case.  But it is to argue that viewing the actions of student protesters battle against Authoritarianism solely through the lens of the 1st amendment is to miss the forest for the trees.

Authoritarian threat to universities is as real as is to society at large.  The right has long jealously viewed elite liberal education with suspicion, and has long sought to cleanse the universities of what they perceive as their liberal bias, even if what they call liberal bias stems largely from the commitment to critical thinking and empirical evidence that is endemic to valid education.  While, of course, there is and always has been room for political diversity on college campuses, the notion that fungible political opinion is and of itself is a form of diversity that should be sought by universities on a par with racial or economic diversity is ridiculous.

Student protesters should be lauded, not criticized for their efforts to step outside their narrow self-interests for which they are otherwise widely criticized. Even if their methods have been less than flawless, who among us has not struggled in the effort to find effective means of resisting the normalization of Authoritarianism, and lest we require reminding, need glance no further than the title of this essay to remind ourselves what’s at stake.

 

 

 

 

AUTHORITARIANISM AND TRUMP: Black Lives Matter

Black lives matter. This is an undeniable truth not to mention brilliant piece of sloganeering. Some people object to the slogan as if it in and of itself it were discriminatory, implying that black lives matter and white lives don’t. But reading this into it is so far off the mark, it doesn’t merit consideration. Others object to the idea of a new civil rights movement. Didn’t we do this already? And they might be right if this were simply 2.0 of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, an academic attempt to eradicate any and all vestiges of white prejudice and racism, as if problems could be wished away with good intentions. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that it has no connection to the 60s Civil Rights Movement because it is clearly linked; potentially nothing less than an attempt to finish the job of previous civil rights eras by lifting up those who for whatever reason or combination of reasons were left behind.

Of course, on the surface Black Lives Matter is principally about cops killing, otherwise mistreating and discriminating against blacks, and a host of related downstream issues implicating the entire criminal justice system. But it’s not just that the criminal justice is inherently racist or otherwise mysteriously went awry. It went awry for a reason, and that reason is that the criminal justice system came to be the de facto replacement for the social welfare system that began to be systematically dismantled under the Reagan Administration. This Darwinian economic and Orwellian political reality led the mainstream Economist Magazine to somewhat shockingly declare what had become only too obvious to many: that the richest nation on earth was all too willing to tolerate enclaves of third world life among its citizenship. Such is not just to say that poverty is rampant in certain neighborhoods as has unfortunately always been the case; third world conditions imply a separate and unequal set of standards. The Bill of Rights offers precious comfort and protections to those living in America’s first world, but in third world America, it may as well not exist.

Seen in this context, the challenge facing Black Lives Matter is as clear as it is broad: to put an end to third world conditions that persist in the United States whether they are related to poverty, health, or safety. Viewed in this light the Affordable Care Act which pulled many out of third world health care in one fell swoop was the most significant civil rights act of the twenty-first century, and the House Republican Don’t Care Act is not just flawed policy based on hysterical opposition to a former black president, but a broad statement that for them black lives simply don’t matter.

Of course, it’s not always a matter of black and white. Black Lives are not the only lives that don’t matter. For the most part the poor don’t matter, black or white. If you watch the nightly news one can’t help notice that the unattractive matter less than the attractive, those without a compelling story line less than those who fit neatly into a tidy narrative. One could argue taken together a majority don’t matter. This has to be turned around sometime and it may as well begin with Black Lives Matter. Whatever it takes to pull blacks out of their third world lives will just as assuredly benefit poor whites because as President Obama often said the fate of all of us are intrinsically tied together.

Where does the Donald fit into all this? As with all authoritarians Trump is right about some things, if wrong about most. The lives of the black underclass are not what they should be and Trump has said as much. This applies to the white underclass as well, and this too is recognized by Trump. As to what to do about it, this is where things fall apart. Trumps response to Black Lives Matter is Cops Lives Matter. Of course, they do. A cop’s job is tough and anyone on the left who thinks anyone will ever score a political victory by picking a fight with the police has got to be nuts. Picking a fight with individual cops though is altogether a different matter. Every good cop should be only too happy to be rid of the bad cops that bring down an entire force. Attorney General Holder was proceeding in a sensible fashion and A.G. Sessions’ reversal of federal oversight is a slap in the face to every good cop and a disservice to the public at large.

Many forget that in the seemingly distant 90s the nation was humming along so smoothly pundits claimed that there was very little of great importance for a president to do. A mature economy with an advanced civil society, an efficient bureaucracy, and Congressional Republicans and Democrats limited to disagreements around the edges, the country tended to run itself. The implication was that any idiot could run the country and things would work out just fine. (Who would have imagined then that the day would come when this would actually be put to the test?)

During the 90s, as there was with so many matters, there was a growing political consensus on matters of race. It was commonly agreed that no individual or group was wholly responsible for his or her station in life, and might need help from time to time. (Democratic position) On the other hand, it was commonly conceded that but for a few severely disadvantaged and in rare circumstances, no person or group was entirely free from responsibility for his or her station in life, and that government assistance should not necessarily be unconditional. (Republican position) If one were to watch the media coverage of the police killings of recent years you’d think the country had never dealt with issues of racism before and there was no collective wisdom whatsoever to draw from. Of course, this is another area in which there is a sliver of truth to what the so-called President says: the American media, or infotainment industry if you will, is indeed flawed, but in a way totally at odds with what’s been alleged.

 

 

Totalitarianism and Trump

Living and working in Eastern Europe for six years in the 90s I was surrounded by people emerging from 45 years of totalitarian rule, many of whom were born into it and had known nothing else until a few short years before. While the conventional American critique of communism is arguably a bit simplistic and over-politicized, such is not to discount it in its entirety. One thing that’s certain these countries weren’t by any measure free, and very much related to this is that Communist governments constantly dealt in disinformation such that no one ever knew what was true and what wasn’t, who to trust and who not to trust. The result were societies where people were only able to be close to a small group of people, and, of course, this served the interests of the government in that it made organized opposition impossible, extremely difficult to say the least.

One of the hardest things in me for me to wrap my head around when I was in Eastern Europe was the degree to which in communist times East Europeans had been restricted from leaving their own countries, much less the Eastern bloc. (If they weren’t exactly prisoners as the term is commonly understand, they were something very close.) How is it that they acquiesced to this? I’m not sure there is a definitive answer, but I think part of it lies in the fact that it happened very gradually. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump’s Muslim bans have been and remain so threatening. Yes, it is repugnant because it goes deeply against the grain of what America stands for in terms of discrimination and group punishment for individual crimes. But it is also scary because it can be seen as an opening gambit in restricting freedom of movement for others, potentially anyone and everyone.

One thing I learned from those who had experienced authoritarian rule firsthand is that almost every lie, no matter how preposterous on its face, had a grain of truth to it, and it is that kernel of truth that in many respects is exactly what made the lie so insidious.

And so it follows that the main thing to understand about Trump is that, like all authoritarians, he’s a pathological liar, and that everything else emanates from this. It’s not so much a character flaw as it is the strategy of the authoritarian (consciously or unconsciously), or better put it is the essence of authoritarianism, the notion that if I think it, if I feel it, if I say it, it will prove right and true. It would be a mistake to try to rationalize such behavior of a government official, much less the president. There is none. It’s not a matter of artistic license, thinking outside the box, or relativism. A government official is not a disrupter. Just because there is room for disagreement and interpretation of what constitutes the truth, it is a mistake to confuse questioning authority with uttering nonsense.

While it may be true the American narrative can be a bit simplistic and overbearing, such is not to give carte blanche for giving up on distinguishing between good and evil, fact and fiction, and, of course this is what Trump does when he deliberately obfuscates the debate on fake news. It is also a mistake to monitor the so-called President’s day to day proclamations, via twitter or otherwise, to look for change or nuance. If someone is a liar than telling the truth now and then is not indicative of a change of heart, quite the contrary it is part of the strategy.

Having no regard for the truth is the essence of totalitarianism. This way everyone is always off balance, you never know who to trust, you don’t know what really happened, and nothing is too trivial to lie about.

 

East European Diaries Available in Prague and Budapest

22207727981_ee1458f79e_nAuthor signing his book for Petr Pajas, Head of the Board of Trustees, Anglo American University. Photo Credit: AAUni Prague

cbk-1 Street view of Shakespeare and Sons via Google Earth. Click image to visit Google Earth and find location.

In Nove Mesto, Prague, East European Diaries is now for sale at the Globe Bookstore, and across the river in Mala Strana at Shakespeare and Sons.

DSC00879

In the center of Budapest at October 6. utca 11 East European Dairies is currently stocked at Bestsellers.

Upcoming Author Reception at Café Des Taxis

12063724_688206791316556_5884994850648910576_n

Upcoming Author Reception at Café Des Taxis

October 15th at 6:00 p.m.

Cafe de Taxis, Letenska 5 in Lesser Town, just across the Charles Bridge

Please visit Cafe de Taxis Facebook Page (click here), for details.

Recent Press: The Commons, Windham County, Vermont

COMMWEBNEW

September 30, 2015, The Commons published the following excerpt (click here) from East European Diaries and an author biography.

EastEuropean_Cover(5-7)2

OCTOBER 3 READING

I will be reading from East European Dairies at the Write Action open reading as part of the Brattleboro Literary Festival on Saturday, October 3 at 7:30 p.m. at the River Garden in Brattleboro, Vermont.

 

 

Eastern Europe and the Migrants

Every once in a while there’s real news. Gorbachev quits, the Berlin wall falls, tens of thousands of migrants arrive at your border. It takes a while to make sense of such events, and the first attempts are usually way off target. East Europeans were criticized for having short memories, despite the fact that emerging from Soviet occupation and accepting help from western countries is quite a stretch from not being equally supportive of the tens of thousands of migrants showing up at your border.

It’s not to say East European countries are faultless. I’m not about to defend any of the right wing governments that have emerged in a number of East European countries in recent years, and surely Hungary’s initial claim that the migrants were Germany’s problem was less than an inspiring act of statesmanship. But the fact that East European reaction appeared harsh may have had as much to do with geography, economics, and history going back to subjugation at the hands of the Ottoman Empire as to a post-communist period in which Hungary has arguably failed to westernize to the degree and in the manner some might imagine they should have.

It’s interesting to see the term ‘post-communism’ back in the headlines, particularly since in the introduction to my book I declare the post-communist era over and done with, at least in the Czech Republic. I stand by my conclusion that the Czech Republic as a nation has transcended its post-communist phase, though that’s not to say post-communism has altogether lost its meaning. No doubt in other parts of Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union post-communism continues to play itself out, and even in the United States where 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and across an ocean only now can a person running for President finally talk about economic egalitarianism and be taken seriously.

I had lunch at a Polish-American acquaintance’s food truck today and he told me that he and his wife were planning on retiring to Poland in ten years: “It’s a better life. It’s more for the middle class.” After six years living in Eastern Europe, and a book on the subject to boot, I couldn’t summarize it any better.

 

 

Black Lives Matter

Prague

 

BLACK LIVES MATTER

What’s this headline possibly have to do with Eastern Europe? First there’s the fact that when an American writes about someplace else, more often than not he or she is implicitly, if not explicitly, comparing and contrasting it with the United States. Treatment of minorities and criminal suspects are sometimes overlapping issues that every society must deal with and the manner in which different societies do so are as legitimate of an area for comparison as anything.

Secondly, it no longer strikes me as mere coincidence that I spent six years in Washington, D.C. as an attorney for the indigent immersed in a culture in some respects every bit as foreign as post-communist Eastern Europe would later prove. I wonder if I would have been so open to Eastern Europe if I had not previously been exposed to a culture turned upside down by a notorious cocaine and crime epidemic.

The following is an article I penned a decade ago:

 

Washington, D.C.

The only white people D.C’s black poor have contact with on a regular basis are social workers, cops, and once in a while an oddball defense attorney like myself. When I showed up at an all-black school (virtually all the nation’s capital’s schools are all-black) the kids on the school playground started shouting at me, asking to see my gun. They took me for a cop. What else could I be? They said they knew where I kept it: under my sport’s jacket stuck into the back of my pants. I turned around and pulled up my jacket to reveal that I didn’t have a gun. They seemed genuinely perplexed.

The next day I was in one of the roughest projects in Northeast D.C. when suddenly out of nowhere cops were swarming all around me. They grabbed whoever was out and about at the time and shook them down. No one seemed the least surprised. There was no apparent ‘probable cause’ or ‘articulable suspicion’ for these actions as we learned was legally necessary in law school, and later rotely muttered in criminal court at Suppression Hearings, usually to no avail. Where was the evening news team when you need them? Where was the ACLU? But middle class rights and legal niceties didn’t much apply here. A cop approached me and asked what I was doing in the neighborhood. I told him I was a defense attorney here to see a client. He seemed to find this response satisfactory, not to mention amusing, and wondered off to find someone else to roust.

One evening I was at a McDonald’s with one of my clients, an 10-year old black girl. I was her guardian-ad-litem and I periodically checked in with her at her foster parents’ house and took her out for some one-on-one time. A man came over to me and asked what was up with me and the girl. I wasn’t offended. He didn’t mean any harm. I was only too happy to explain the situation and was frankly glad someone was paying attention.

Occasionally I shot a few baskets with a teenage client at some neighborhood park. I’d been a pretty good player in high school—for a white boy as the saying goes—though out of shape and practice, not to mention fast approaching middle age. As it turned out I was better than any of the kids I played with. The fact is that most black kids aren’t any good at basketball and most can’t jump either, stereotypes to the contrary.

The black kids I knew in D.C were not prejudiced. They just weren’t. They didn’t distinguish much between establishment blacks and establishment whites. They didn’t hate either one of them, but that’s not to say there was necessarily a lot of love lost amongst them either. Once I asked an 11-year old who his previous lawyer had been, as it is often useful to talk to previous lawyers to get insights beyond the facts of the case. He told me he’d had a woman lawyer the last time he was in court, but he couldn’t remember her name. Trying to narrow things down a little, I asked if she were black or white. He didn’t directly say she was either, rather with all the innocence and purity only a child could muster her responded that “[s]he was your color.” I looked down at my hand and contemplated my color: even in the pale of winter a sort of beige, nearly as distant from white as black.

On weekends I’d often call on my clients, whether they were in jail, at home, or hanging around on the streets. One client happened to be in the hospital recovering from a stab wound. I had it in the back of my mind that I would go to the hospital this particular Saturday to check up on him, but I got involved in other things and never got around to it. Watching the evening news, I saw a report about a couple gun-wielding kids who had busted out their wounded friend from the hospital earlier that day. Safe to say, I was glad I hadn’t been there. D.C. was like the Wild West during Ronald Reagan’s go-go 80s; crazy stuff like this was happening all the time.

Sometimes my clients didn’t show up for their court appearances. More than once this was because my client had been gunned down. I’d become particularly close to Chris and his mom, and when I heard he’d been killed, I didn’t know what to do. I’d been to Chris’s home many times, preparing our case, sitting at the kitchen table with my papers strewn about as his siblings and friends came and went. Chris and his mom clearly loved each other. He joked with her all the time, sometimes saying outrageous stuff to just get her goat. His mom would shake her head and roll her eyes, but with a twinkle in her eye she’d smile because she knew he didn’t really mean what he said. The most surprising thing about clients like Chris was—despite the fact that they lived in a drug infested violent world—they were not all that different from what me and my solidly middle class had been like as teenagers. I don’t mean this in some corny well-meaning, liberal-ass way. I say it simply because it’s undeniably true. Of course, I had some friends that got into trouble with the law when they were teenagers. Some were from the wrong side of the tracks, some from more privileged backgrounds. No matter what the background though, when I was a kid it was no big deal to screw up and be involved in the juvenile justice system. It was assumed that kids would grow out of their problems, and for the most part they did. The world had become a less forgiving place today. Screwing up has more serious consequences. As bad as things were in D.C., so long as they stayed alive at least the courts still believed in the rehabilitation of minors. By the mid-90s rehabilitation of minors in many parts of the country had become a cruel joke. Increasingly it was about punishment and retribution and punishment and retribution only.

During six years I never had a white client in Washington, but for a young Iranian woman who was picked up in her evening gown in front of a Georgetown disco with a group of young people who happened to have a trunk load of guns in their car. Although she spent an unpleasant weekend in jail, she was never arraigned, never charged with a crime, so she didn’t count as a real client. During this time I represented only one juvenile client who fit the stereotype of being tough and hardened beyond his years. He was resigned to doing time, so he pled guilty and thanked me for my “help.” More common were the kids who broke down in tears in lock-up, though if you read about them in the paper you’d have gotten the impression they were tough as nails and without remorse.

In Washington I was always struck by how well blacks and whites got along, given half a chance. Most of the witnesses I called upon in the city’s projects were so surprised to see a white guy come knocking on their door, that they were disarmed and willing to answer questions and chat about anything and everything under the sun. I remember once after the first day of trial, I was blowing off steam by shadow boxing, and horsing around with a 17 year old witness. The kid probably weighed 250 pounds and if a white person were to come across him on the streets of Washington, I can pretty much assure you that eye contact would have been avoided, much less pleasantries exchanged. As I’m goofing around with him, suddenly turns to me and blurts out in his baddest street jive:   “You know, I could mess you up bad, man.” I did a quick double take, and thought for a moment that yea, I suppose he could. Then our eyes met, and we simultaneously cracked up.

Middle class Americans for the most part know don’t know any poor people, black or white, and consequently tend to believe they don’t really exist. The poor are everywhere, of course, and we bump right up against them in or city streets, even in small towns and hamlets, yet they are somehow invisible to us most of the time. When a talking head on the TV screen comes on and tells us about a Tsunami or Katrina, or just some local down on his luck sob story, for a moment, they’re no longer invisible. Americans consider themselves generous to a fault, and in a sense we are. We’re only too happy to donate to the nice people on the TV screen. Still, there is something disturbing about responding to the TV monitor this way, seeing only what we’re told to see.

 

Copyright © 2015 by David B. Brown