Month: June 2017

OBAMACARE REPEAL PROMISE SHOWS ITS AGE, AND IT’S NOT PRETTY

For one brief shining moment, the left and the right have come together in a chorus of Kumbaya. All it took was a singularly pernicious piece of legislation that simultaneously offended all of their principles. You’ve got to hand it to Republican congressional leaders: they came up with a health care bill that almost anyone can hate. Who could have imagined such a collection of odd couples – Planned Parenthood and the Koch brothers, MoveOn.org and the Tea Party, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz – all locking arms in battle?

Yet, even with depleted and exhausted troops, these determined generals – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan – keep trying to climb that seemingly unscalable mountain in order to pound a stake through the heart of Obamacare. It’s a seven-year-old elusive dream that has not aged well. This bizarre mission is draped in a misplaced notion of integrity, of promises to keep. “We’re keeping our word,” Ryan told ABC news. “That’s very important.” Our promise, McConnell has repeatedly insisted, is to “repeal Obamacare root and branch.” The repeal mantra worked for Republicans back in the day. But political slogans need to change with the times. Even George Wallace knew that his 1963 “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” line wouldn’t play in the 1980s. Too much had changed. The health care swing was less dramatic but just as real.

The frenzy to pass this legislation is all about a promise that is no longer operative. It served conservative political interests a few years back, when the new health insurance system was confusing, unsettling and, thanks to Republican demagoguery, unpopular. However, people have gotten used to it, including the estimated 17-20 million who now have insurance for the first time. Suddenly, polls show that a majority of Americans like Obamacare. Meanwhile, NPR/Marist polling on the Republican health bill this week gave it a 17% approval rating. In that same survey, 63% of the respondents favored either leaving Obamacare unchanged or strengthening it.

From a pure standpoint of self-interest, the GOP’s health care strategy makes no sense. Politicians have two constituencies: voters and campaign contributors. So far, every health care permutation Republicans have come up with alienates both groups. If anything resembling their current bills pass, between 22 and 23 million Americans will lose insurance. Lower income families and the elderly will see premiums rise by 280%. Taking benefits away from people – or overcharging for them – is not an effective way to win votes. Republican governors get that, which is why many of them oppose their party’s mindless drive to repeal and replace. It’s a promise that has lost its predicate.

And now come the financial heavies, the real power behind the anti-Obamacare movement, all angrily insisting that the Republican bills aren’t a repeal at all. The repeal promise, of course, was not born out of a desire to create a better health care system. It was all about appeasing the Koch brothers and other titans of the corporate right. Americans for Prosperity, the Koch network’s political arm, and a number of similar groups, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of candidates committed to a total dismantling of Obamacare. They are all thoroughly disgusted with the House and Senate bills that upend insurance for millions and slash Medicaid spending. It’s not enough for them, not nearly enough. AFP leader Tim Phillips called the Republican legislation “a slight nip and tuck”, according to the Associated Press. He said it was “Obamacare-lite” and that AFP is poised to go after Republicans who support it. In other words, the only way McConnell and Ryan can satisfy their financial benefactors is to cut much deeper, leaving millions more without insurance, and passing their subsidies on to the rich in the form of tax cuts.

The Washington Post reported today that McConnell was gingerly rearranging pieces of his Senate bill in an attempt to address objections launched from every possible direction. Reportedly, this would involve scaling back tax cuts for the rich in favor of helping lower income people get insurance. That might appease some moderates but will further frustrate the right. To compensate, says The Post, he may strike some Obamacare coverage mandates from the bill. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill’s reduction in Medicaid coverage would be significantly higher than originally calculated. Bottom line: the bill is not headed toward a Palm Sunday reception.

McConnell and Ryan are not in this promise trap by themselves. President Trump spent his campaign promising to slay Obamacare on day one. Of course, the president could cram everything he knows about health care and the legislative process into a single tweet, and have 140 characters left over. He says he wants a Senate bill that is not as “mean” as the House version. Yet, Trump threw a Rose Garden celebration for passage of that “mean” House bill, calling it “very, very, incredibly well-crafted . . .a great plan.” Unlike the president, McConnell and Ryan know what they are doing. They just made a huge stumble.

There is a certain nobility attached to fulfilling a promise, but nobility can quickly turn into dung when the underlying conditions behind the promise change. This is one more example of Republicans ignoring science at their peril. Remember the uncertainty principle from physics class? You can determine a particle’s position or its momentum, but you can’t accurately measure both at the same time. That’s because positions and momentum change. The Republican leadership built their repeal strategy on 2010 measurements. Once people who never had health insurance got it, the public’s position on the particle called Obamacare started to change. It’s been moving ever since, but the Senate majority leader and House speaker are just now taking stock of its momentum.

MOTHER LODE OF VULGARITY WINS FEDERAL COURT REPRIEVE

Warning: If slang words entailing a hard “ck” sound invoke trauma, hysteria or bad middle school memories, please cover your eyes. For the rest of you, here’s the good news: “motherfucker” got a thumbs-up from three federal appellate judges. The decision may not rise quite to the level of Brown v. Board of Education, but it was music to ears of disgruntled employees, particularly those who have a m’fer for a boss.

What a long, strange judicial trip it’s been for this nasty moniker, the titular pinnacle of George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words. According to those who study these things, motherfucker made its jurisprudence debut in a 1889 Texas Court of Appeals case, Levy v. State. A witness testified that Defendant Levy was a “God damned mother-f–king bastardly son-of-a-bitch.” The legal precedent established an expletive hierarchy, allowing every word except m’fer to be spelled out. A decade later, however, the same Texas court reversed itself and filled in the blanks. The case at hand involved a murder defendant who argued justifiable homicide on the basis that his victim had called him a “mother-fucking-son-of-a-bitch.” Twenty years after that, according to a book by historian Henry Louis Gates, a young man ordered to fight in World War I, fired off a letter to the editor of a Memphis newspaper calling his draft board “low-down motherfuckers”. He was court-martialed and did 10 years of hard labor.

Thanks to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, motherfucker has come a long way, etymologically speaking. Here’s the deal: Back in 2011, workers at a New York catering company, Pier Sixty, were trying to form a union. Shortly before the vote, one of the organizers, Hernan Perez, was berated by his boss, Bob McSweeney. On his break, Perez, smartphone in hand, punched out a Facebook vent about the encounter. Here, unedited, is what he posted: “Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER FUCKER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! Fuck his mother and entire fucking family!!!!! What a LOSER!!!!! Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!”

As you might imagine, Pier Sixty management did not shower Perez’s Facebook page with likes. Instead, it fired him. Therein began an intense six-year search for the true meaning of motherfucker by some of the best legal minds in the country. Under federal labor law, bosses are generally prohibited from disciplining workers who are acting together for the betterment of working conditions. In this case, Perez didn’t just call McSweeney a “nasty motherfucker,” he called him that in the context of a union organizing campaign. In labor law parlance, that is called “protected concerted activity.” In other words, you can’t be fired for that.

But wait, there’s more. There are limits to this protection. What if Perez had no Facebook access during that catering event and, instead of calling McSweeney a motherfucker, had, say, dumped a three-bean salad on his boss’ head? Under labor case law, an employee loses protection if the concerted activity is “opprobrious”. (In the interest of saving you a click, that means pretty darn bad.) So, exactly one century after some poor guy got 10 years of hard labor for calling his draft board a bunch of m’fers, thanks to Facebook and an angry union organizer, the legal system was posed to answer a question many of us had never pondered: Is motherfucker opprobrious?

Imagine the scene in the mahogany confines of justice: ponderous thinkers in black robes, judges accustomed to complex sentences packed with words like collateral estoppel, subrogation, tortfeasor and habeas corpus, studiously examining a vocabulary they’ve hidden from their children. They pour through the case law, decades of testimony about angry employees calling their managers everything from “stupid fucking moron” to “egotistical fucker”, from a “fucking asshole” to a “fucking crook”, without crossing the opprobrious line. But now they were faced, in a very literal sense, with the mother of them all.

Lawyers for Pier Sixty, with straight faces included in their $650-an-hour rate, argued that Perez went well beyond the common pale of vulgarity when he pulled his supervisor’s poor, innocent mother into the mix. Yes, they stipulated, their client’s managers had, indeed, discovered new conjugations of the f-word on a daily basis. They admitted the bosses said the following to their charges: “Are you guys fucking stupid?”; “a fucking little Mexican,” and a “motherfucker who should eat shit.” But, but, but, they insisted: the vile, disgusting words Perez used are “distinguishable from a passing epithet uttered in frustration”. When he said, “Fuck his mother and his entire family,” the corporate lawyers insisted, this worker was getting personal and involving his boss’ family members. And that, they said, is as opprobrious as it gets.

That argument was respectfully rejected, first by an administrative law judge, followed by the National Labor Relations Board, and then by the Second Circuit appellate panel. They concluded that Perez was not literally proposing sexual intercourse with his supervisor’s mother or other family members; he was simply dissing the guy himself. Any teenager could have explained that to the learned judges. But these kind of weighty matters need expert opinion, so they plowed through numerous academic treatises (here and here) on the use of mother-denigrating slang as a means of verbally attacking an adversary.

As a result of all this litigation. Perez won his job back. M’fer means many things to many people, but whatever it is, thanks to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, it is not opprobrious. Let’s hope this case does not end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knows what those motherfuckers would do with it?

THE VERDICT IS IN: JURIES ARE NOT CHANGE AGENTS

Two high profile trials that ended last weekend reminded us that petit juries are no venue for profound social change. In two very different deliberations, jurors did what they were supposed to do: examined the evidence and applied the law to those facts. To say that neither outcome advanced broader underlying causes would be an understatement.

Philando Castile was a black 32-year-old Minnesota school cafeteria worker. He was driving with a broken brake light last July when a suburban St. Paul police officer, Jeronimo Yanez, stopped him. Within minutes, Castile was dead. The officer, after approaching the car window, asked Castile for his license and proof of insurance, which he immediately produced. According to police records, Castile then told Yanez that he was carrying a firearm (duly registered). The officer told him not to pull it out, and then proceeded to fire seven shots at him. Yanez became the first Minnesota police officer in modern history to be charged with manslaughter. On Friday, a jury acquitted him of all charges.

Meanwhile, about 1,200 miles to the east, 12 jurors deliberated for 52 hours in Norristown, Pennsylvania over whether legendary comedian Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted a woman more than a decade ago. The case was a proxy of sorts for at least 59 other women who, going back over more than half a century, claim they were similarly assaulted by Cosby. Only one case, however, was before this jury, and since the alleged incident occurred 13 years ago, strained and inconsistent memories resulted in conflicting testimony. On Saturday, jurors said they were “hopelessly deadlocked” and the judge declared a mistrial.

These two juries, sitting in separate county courthouses 1,200 miles apart, sparked viscerally adverse reactions among those who had hoped for verdicts that would send strong messages on two important issues: racism in policing, and aggressive prosecution of sexual assault.

A Star-Tribune story on the Minnesota verdict started with this sentence: “For black Minnesotans, the acquittal of Jeronimo Yanez in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile was the latest sign of a criminal justice system that often delivers heartbreak.” That angst is more than just a Minnesota thing. In 15 recent instances of black men killed by police nationwide, there were only two convictions. Still, the facts of this case seemed particularly strong. According to prosecutors, Castile did everything right. He was polite and compliant. He wasn’t running from police. There was no weapon in his hand. He just sat there, calmly and quietly, while the officer fired seven shots at him.

While the jury heard those facts, it also listened to Yanez’s tearful testimony about being confused and in fear of his life. Jurors, according to a Bowling Green State University study, are inclined to distinguish between a cop’s serious mistake and manslaughter, particularly if the officer was scared or confused. After 29 hours of deliberations, these 12 people – 10 white and 2 black – decided that the seven shots Officer Yanez fired at Philando Castile did not rise to the level of criminal activity. Jason Sole is the president of the Minneapolis NAACP. He told the New York Times the verdict was “more of the same.” “How are you going to kill this guy and still say we have a fair system? How? Man, this behavior has gotta stop, and they can’t stop so they are going to continue to kill us.”

Back in Norristown, the jury system was also taking it on the chin. Andrea Constand, a former Temple University athletic administrator, testified that Bill Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2004. Dozens of other women have come forward with stories of similar Cosby encounters, but have been time-barred from taking action. The jury’s inability to reach a unanimous verdict was seen by some of his accusers as a repudiation of sexual assault victims. For example, Lise-Lotte Lubin, who claims Cosby drugged and abused her in 1989, called the lack of a unanimous guilty verdict one more sign that rape victims are rarely believed.

As a distant observer of both trials, I too was disappointed in the outcomes. I would have gone with guilty verdicts, based on what I had read, together with my values and beliefs (also known as biases). But I wasn’t a juror. I didn’t hear the testimony or see the evidence. I didn’t take an oath to apply the law only to what I heard and saw in those courtrooms. Juries for better or worse, are the centrifuge of our justice system. As a reporter covering courts years ago, I marveled at how well this seemingly quaint and archaic process worked. On the surface, it might seem flawed to plunk 12 random citizens into uncomfortable chairs and expect them to make important decisions outside their comfort zones. Yet, a mammoth review of multiple jury studies by a Cornell University team concluded that jurors consistently take their role seriously, follow the rules, and make decisions based on the evidence and the law, as opposed to crafting their own brand of justice.

And that is precisely the point. Those Minnesota and Pennsylvania jurors were not there to solve the weighty problems of racism, police violence or sexual assault prosecutions. Their job was limited to a single case, with specific facts and legal standards. The real fix for the larger social issues lies in other venues: police leadership, city halls and state legislatures. That’s where the pressure needs to be applied. It’s already happened in the Cosby matter. Many states have eliminated time limits for filing sexual assault charges, a nod to the horde of Cosby accusers who came forward after it was too late to prosecute. With respect to police shootings, if city administrators can’t find a way to stop scared, confused cops from killing people, then it’s time to change the statutes. Make the law crystal clear: a police officer’s fear and confusion are unacceptable defenses to manslaughter.

HOMELAND INSECURITY: A RUSSIAN ATTACK & A PRESIDENT WHO WON’T STOP IT

Remember that old salty story about a kid trying to shovel his way through a towering pile of horse manure, convinced there had to be a pony in there somewhere? It really captures the whole Russia/Trump/FBI brouhaha. Peel away the layers of dung – the Comey memos, the dueling claims of obstruction and vindication, the etymology of “hope” as a command – and there lies the nearly forgotten source of this mess: a foreign adversary’s attempt to sabotage our democracy.

A daily barrage of Trumpian subplots is distracting us from the compelling and frightening antecedent that started everything. That is mind boggling for those of us who grew up in the ‘50s and ‘60s, when, as kids, we were less concerned with the bogeyman than we were with a shoe-pounding Nikita Khrushchev and his promise to bury us. Fifty-some years later, Russia is caught screwing with our elections and the country gets all wrapped up in peripheral stuff, like whether the fired FBI director is a leaker.

Every U.S. intelligence agency has been unequivocal: Russia executed an extensive and elaborate plot to interfere with last year’s election. Not one cabinet secretary or member of Congress has disputed that assertion. In fact, most of them, including the Republican House speaker and Senate majority leader, have publically acknowledged Russia’s tampering. There is only one office holder in Washington who refuses to accept this reality: President Donald J. Trump. This president has not only consistently pooh-poohed the growing mountain of evidence that Russia interfered in our election, he has denigrated all of the Congressional and FBI investigations on the matter, calling them “witch hunts”.

Asha Rangappa is a former FBI agent and currently an associate dean at Yale Law School. In an op-ed for the Washington Post, she offered a singularly unique take on James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The real bombshell, she wrote, had nothing to do with Trump’s attempt to stop an investigation or Comey releasing his notes to the media. Instead, Rangappa argued, it was the president’s unwillingness “to preserve, protect and defend” the country from Russia’s attack on our free elections.

“In the nine times Trump met with or called Comey,” she wrote, “it was always to discuss how the investigation into Russia’s election interference was affecting him personally, rather than the security of the country. He apparently cared little about understanding either the magnitude of the Russian intelligence threat, or how the FBI might be able to prevent another attack in future elections.”

This is a president who has not lifted a finger to protect our democratic elections from an outside attack. This is huge, and we should never, for a moment, lose sight of it. The accusation of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians is speculative and unproven right now. Thanks to Comey’s testimony and recent news reports, we know a little more about a possible obstruction of justice charge against Trump, but it remains a close and unsettled question. Yet, by refusing to even acknowledge a foreign adversary’s interference in our election, the president has placed his personal ego needs above his sworn duty to protect this country.

Trump’s repeated refusal to deal constructively with the Russian election threat grows more acute with every revelation of the depth and breadth of the 2016 intrusion. Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that Russia’s cyber-attacks on our electoral system were much more extensive than originally thought. According to that reporting, Russian hackers made their way into the official voting records of 39 states. Bloomerg quoted a senior intelligence official who expressed fear that the 2016 foray into local election systems gives the Russians three years to use that knowledge in plotting an attack for 2020. Comey echoed that concern in his testimony last week. “They’re coming after America,” he said. “They will be back.”

Donald Trump is doing absolutely nothing to protect us from that attack. That, it seems to me, needs to be part of the Resistance’s messaging in the days ahead. There is no need to prove collusion or obstruction to make this patently obvious charge stick. The Russians are coming after us, and our president is doing nothing about it. If any of the pending investigations subsequently reveal evidence of collusion or obstruction, then his despicable nonfeasance becomes all the more aggravated.

Trump’s obstinate insistence on giving Russia a pass on its attack on our electoral system has the potential to transcend partisanship, even in this bitterly divided country. Just yesterday, in a remarkable rebuke of the White House, the Senate voted 97 to 2 to block any efforts by Trump to scale back sanctions against Russia. That a Republican-controlled Senate doesn’t trust this president on a critical matter of national security is a ready-made lightening rod for changing some minds in Trumpville.

If this nightmare is going to end before 2020, those minds need to be changed. Forget all that nuanced legal analysis about grounds for impeachment. The process is political, not legal. Even if Democrats won back the House and Senate in 2018, an incredibly heavy lift, a two-thirds Senate vote is required for removing a president. An impeachment has to be bipartisan. Congressional Republicans have never been comfortable with Trump, but they have no appetite for incurring the wrath of his base in their own elections. As that base deflates, however, the whole dynamic changes. Trump’s approval rating has been slipping by a percent or two each week and is currently at 37 percent. Since February, a third of that group downgraded from “strongly supports” to “supports”. The momentum is slow but steady. All the more reason to shine the spotlight on the unassailable narrative of Russia’s plot to sabotage America’s elections, and Trump’s refusal to do anything about it. After all, protecting the country from an enemy attack has always been a bedrock value of conservatism.

TRUMP AND HIS BASE: A DECEPTIVE RELATIONSHIP THAT WON’T LAST

Donald Trump’s bizarre presidency is a bastion of smoke and mirrors, an illusion forever under construction. He may owe his celebrity to reality TV, but there is absolutely nothing real about this imposter posing as America’s 45th president.

There he was on Monday, in an elegantly appointed room filled with faux Important People, right out of central casting. He was signing impressive looking documents and handing out souvenir pens, all to the accompaniment of a military band. It was, as the Los Angeles Times’ Noah Bierman reported, Trump’s kickoff of “infrastructure week”, complete with promises of a “great new era” and a “revolution in technology.”

The scene looked very much like a president on the march, a leader focused singularly on his vision for America, showing the world he would not be distracted by annoying FBI investigations. Yet it was all fake. The documents Trump signed during the photo op were neither bills nor executive orders. They were, according to the Times, letters to Congress in support of transferring control of the nation’s air traffic control system to the private sector. Days later, there are still no available details on his infrastructure plan. It was all a sham.

Granted, presidents – and lesser mortals whose job security rests with the ballot box – have been known to spin, obfuscate and prevaricate their way through public service. But the Donald has not just made an art form out of deception, he’s taken it to an entirely new level. It’s no longer about “playing to the base” as a source of leverage to accomplish stuff. With Trump, keeping his base’s love alive is an end in itself.

This guy has but one gear: puffing himself up to look good to his loyal army of passionate supporters. Remember those post-primary commentaries about Trump’s need to pivot for the general election? Never happened. Then he won the election and pundits said he needed to “pivot to the presidential”. Not happening. Forget jumping, this white guy doesn’t even pivot. He just keeps playing to his base like it’s two days before the New Hampshire primary.

For example, legal analysts sympathetic to the president say Trump seriously damaged his travel ban case this week with Twitter messages that not only chastised judges and his own justice department, but used phrases like “people from DANGEROUS countries”. The tweets undermined and contradicted arguments his lawyers had advanced on his behalf. As the Washington Post’s James Hohmann noted, this behavior is beyond goofy Trump impulsiveness. “If Trump truly cared about the underlying ban and wanted it to be in place for the country’s security, as he claims,” wrote Hohmann, “he would not be speaking so freely. The billionaire businessman has been mired in litigation off and on for decades and has demonstrated an ability – when his own money was at stake – to be self-disciplined.”

So why would he deliberately jeopardize such a key platform pillar? The answer is that Donald Trump is unable – or unwilling – to pivot. He is in perpetual campaign mode; all that matters is feeling the love of his base. He is willing to risk a legal defeat over his travel ban in order to let them know how passionate he is about keeping Muslims out of the county. Even if it never happens. Just like the fake bill signing, it’s all about the illusion.

Same story with all of the campaign hits:

• Medical Insurance. Trump is still serenading his base with talk of “fantastic health care for everyone . . .it will cost less and have lower deductibles.” That’s the illusion. The reality is that he never lifted a finger to make any of that happen. He simply supported a House Republican bill he never understood that would eliminate coverage for 23 million people.

• Mexican Border Wall. He celebrated the 100th day of his presidency telling a Harrisburg, PA rally of screaming fans, “Don’t even worry about it. Go home, go to sleep, rest assured, we’ll build the wall.” That’s the illusion. The reality is that a Republican Congress refused to fund the project as part of the 2017 budget and has little to no enthusiasm for taking it up in 2018.

• Climate Change and Job Creation. In another staged Rose Garden celebration, Trump announced the country’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, touting his campaign promise to “save that coal industry, believe me, we’re going to save it.” That’s the illusion. The reality is that there is no sign of a single coal mining job being created – or saved – as a result of the U.S. pulling out of the Paris agreement.

Right now, the dynamic of this presidency is propelled not by a public policy agenda, but by the symbiotic relationship between Trump and his base: an insecure narcissist looking for love, and alienated voters looking for hope. The president’s problem is with his long game. The harder he works to fuel the illusion of hope, the more damage he does to his already abysmal chances of actually effecting change. There are already signs of disillusionment in his base. Nate Silver, the pollster superstar, reports that 21 percent of the electorate now say they strongly approve of Trump. That’s down from a peak of 30 percent in February, a loss of about a third of his base.

This erosion seems likely to continue. It’s hard to let go of hope, particularly when you’ve gone so long without it. But when the insurance gets worse instead of better, when the jobs don’t come back, when the wall isn’t built, and nobody is more secure, hope starts to feel pretty empty. And when hope dies, so dies the love that has propelled this illusionist president since Day One. The quid-pro-quo deal will have not so artfully ended. Only one question remains: Will “The Apprentice” take him back?

NO WINNERS IN WHITE HOUSE VERSION OF CELEBRITY APPRENTICE

So, it has come to this. In our toxically polarized world, the battle for moral superiority between left and right rests on a surrogate matchup of Kathy Griffin and Ted Nugent, with an undercard starring Bill Maher and Tila Tequila.
In one ring, battling to the death for bragging rights as the most offensive and despicable, is Griffin, clutching a simulation of Donald Trump’s severed skull, and Nugent, with thoughts of an assassinated Obama dancing in his head. In the racist ring is Trump supporter and reality star Tequila, flashing her finest anti-black-and-brown Nazi salute, facing off against TV host Maher and his it’s-only-a-joke N-word banter. Que Michael Buffer: “Let’s get ready to rumble!”
Sadly, the rumbling never stops. Like tinnitus’s constant ringing, this high-pitched, acrimonious roar shows no sign of abating any time soon. It’s enough to make you long for simpler times when a celebrity saying stupid stuff was . . . well, just a celebrity saying stupid stuff. As opposed to an escalation of our endless ideological war.
The latest battleground surfaced last week when, for some inexplicable reason, Griffin, a comedian, released a picture of herself holding a faux bloody Trump head. There was no context, no lead-up, no punchline and, as far as anyone can tell, no laughter. As the excrement hit the fan, Griffin offered the standard comedic defense that she was only trying to be funny, that crossing the line of appropriateness is the heart of humor. Yeah but, there still has to be a hook to make the inappropriateness funny. Years ago, Joan Rivers used this line in her stand-up: “Boy George is all England needs – another queen who can’t dress.” Inappropriate? Sure, but it had a hook, a context that got a laugh – even from Boy George. All Griffin had was a bloody head.

As a result, her world began to crumble. Despite her apology, CNN fired Griffin from her standing New Year’s Eve gig with Anderson Cooper, who independently blasted her for the prank. Most of her summer tour venues have canceled on her. At a tearful press conference Friday, the comedian said Trump was out to get her, insisting, with a level of self-absorption rivaling the president’s, that the White House is “using me as the shiny object so that nobody is talking about his (Trump’s) FBI investigation.” Obviously, it would take much more than a bully comic holding another bully’s head to divert attention from this FBI investigation.

Meanwhile, Twitter and Facebook exploded into a fully involved proxy war. The president’s fans, predictably, expressed wildly indignant outrage over Griffin’s severed Trump head bit, many proposing acts of retribution outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. Then came a quick liberal chorus of “nana nana nana” with posts about Nugent, a 60s rocker who made a sharp right turn, and recently dined with Trump at the White House. Where was the conservative consternation, these posts asked, when Nugent called Obama a “mongrel” and invited him to “suck on my machine gun”? Then came a retrospective of various Obama-in-a-noose memes offered up by his many passionate detractors, raising this bizarre dialectic of moral equivalency: images depicting the lynching of our first black president versus a beheading of his successor. If the founding fathers had envisioned social media, the First Amendment would likely have come with an exclusionary clause.

With no ceasefire in sight, the war opened a new front Friday night when sharp-tongued comedian and Trump critic Maher used the N-word on his HBO show, “Real Time”. A guest, Republican Senator Ben Sasse, jokingly invited Maher to Nebraska to “work the fields.” The host’s response: “Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n***r.” Maher’s subsequent apology did little to subdue the Twitter rants. Conservatives, still bristling from their loss of Fox News idol Bill O’Reilly, demanded that HBO fire Maher. It was, of course, a tough case for them to make in 140 characters, given their party’s dismal track record on matters of race. So the tweets were mostly a gotcha thing, as in: “Fire him! You know that’s what Democrats would say if Sean Hannity used the word.” That provoked a liberal response about Tila Tequila, a fallen reality TV star and Trump supporter who has said vile things about blacks and Latinos and led a white nationalist audience in a “Heil Trump” salute last fall.

Yet, it was refreshing to see a number of messages from the left, many from black leaders, that unequivocally condemned a white comedian for using a racial epithet that has no business even residing in his vocabulary. It is, indeed, possible to abhor the deeply divisive and Draconian policies of the Trump administration while, at the same time, castigating entertainers of our political stripe when they jettison every line of decency.

Unfortunately, social media lulls us into the illusion of tribalism, complete with its us-versus-them modality. We lob our verbal grenades at anyone who seems to be part of the other side, slicing and dicing with an angry indignation that never stops. When one of our own is attacked, it’s time to re-powder, circle the wagons and fire away again, or so we think. These are, without a doubt, the most emotionally strained and troubled political times many of us have gone through. Our country is as torn and divided as it has been since the Civil War. There is so much at stake. To suggest, for even a moment, that Kathy Griffin is a victim worthy of our attention diminishes and denigrates the real Trump victims, like the 23 million people who would lose medical insurance under his plan, displaced workers denied job retraining benefits under his budget, families split and devastated by the cruelty of his deportations.

So let’s take some deep breaths and try to avoid the peripheral skirmishes that really don’t matter. That will make it easier to focus on the real challenge – reversing the course this country has been on since January 20.