Why People Distrust Government

                                                         By David K. Shipler 

            This is a story about high-handed Maine state officials proposing to jeopardize island residents’ emergency access to mainland hospitals. It is a local outrage, small in comparison to the sweeping outrages that are uprooting global security and undermining American democracy. But its significance is immense, because it’s a case study in how anti-government sentiment can be generated among good citizens who depend on key services. Nationwide, that disaffection has been a key element in the country’s dramatic political shifts.

            The issue is straightforward. For 65 years, since the state launched car ferry service, the boats have docked overnight on four islands, which don’t have hospitals but are populated year- round and have a surge of summer residents. So, the Maine State Ferry Service provides sleeping quarters on the islands for the crews, who can be roused if there’s a medical emergency in the middle of the night. An island ambulance drives onto the ferry and drives off on the mainland.

That system might be scrapped for three of the islands in two or three years, if the state has its way. The commissioner of transportation, Bruce Van Note, and the director of the ferry service, William Geary, say they’re considering docking the ferries overnight on the mainland. They are in the Democratic administration of Governor Janet Mills, whose press secretary, Ben Goodman, did not answer my emailed request for an explanation of her position.

Under the proposal, there would be no transportation by ambulance between the last ferry run of the day and the first the next morning. I’m biased, because I spend four to five months a year on Swan’s Island: I’ll try to arrange my stroke or heart attack in the daytime.

            There are other ways to get off the islands. LifeFlight has highly equipped helicopters, but only five for the whole state. If there’s one available, it can fly in at night, but here’s the catch: not in thick fog, which is endemic in Maine.

            Lobstermen and other island residents have boats, of course, and when things get tough, people step up to help. The Coast Guard might come, and state officials have mentioned small rescue boats as an option. But an ambulance couldn’t drive on to any of them. Getting a stretcher-bound patient down a steep ramp to a floating dock and onto a mostly open boat is a dangerous, tricky exercise, especially on an icy winter night with rough seas and freezing wind. And outside an ambulance with medical equipment and trained emergency volunteers, a patient in an acute condition runs a high risk. Watch this video of the transfer of a patient via lobster boat from the island of North Haven.   

             North Haven, Swan’s, and Islesboro would lose their overnight boats under the plan. The fourth island, Vinalhaven, is served by two boats, so one could still spend the night there. (Two other islands, Frenchboro and Matinicus, get only infrequent runs by state ferries, and boats have never berthed there overnight.)

            The state cites two reasons for mainland docking: First, it would save money on crew quarters because workers could live at home and commute. But many crew live too far from the mainland terminals to make daily drives, and some have told islanders that they’d quit—this during a shortage of able-bodied seaman qualified to staff the boats.

            The second argument holds that new boats will be hybrid diesel-electric, whose batteries cannot be charged on islands, which get electricity via submarine cables and have insufficient power infrastructure. Can’t that be upgraded? Let’s pretend we’re living in the 21^st century!

            Aside from the medical issue, islanders are worried about their children, many of whom commute by the first morning ferry at 6:45 to high school on the mainland. Some students board with families on the mainland instead of going home every night, which might become unavoidable under the state’s docking plan.

            Friction between island communities and the state ferry service is longstanding, mostly about rising fares, breakdowns, and missed runs because of crew shortages. But what might be even more important than the nuts-and-bolts of particular disputes is the sense of powerlessness among folks utterly dependent on a distant agency that seems to listen to them reluctantly, if at all. The state ferry service is essentially a monopoly, and it’s not fun when you have to mobilize to obtain basic respect for your dignity.

On the other hand, the ferries are heavily subsidized by the state government, and no private company could run them at the existing fares, which don’t cover the rising costs of fuel, wages, and maintenance. You don’t hear rhapsodies of gratitude for this fact on the islands, though, because the fares are high enough to cause pain. The state raised them by 15 percent last summer and wants another 15 percent increase this year. Summertime roundtrip rates for a passenger to most islands would be $23 for a 40- to 60-minute journey, and $55 for a vehicle and driver. That means $78 to take a loved-one for chemo, for example, a hardship for a good many islanders.

The ferry service holds hearings, as the law requires, but some legislators listening to the uproar from their island constituents aren’t taking any chances. A bill requiring nighttime docking on the islands has been introduced by eight state legislators—four Democrats and four Republicans—in a region that is politically divided. Swan’s Island, for example, lies in a district that gave its one electoral vote to Trump (Maine splits its electoral votes), and yet is represented by a Democratic House member in Washington, DC.

Ferry schedules are but one assault on people’s well-being. Health care in Maine and elsewhere is being damaged more broadly by Republicans in Washington. The cuts they are considering to Medicaid, the insurance program for low-income citizens, would hurt everyone, not just recipients. Because many rural hospitals and clinics rely on Medicaid payments, some would have to reduce services or even close. And the Trump administration’s sudden, chain-saw halt of medical research into antiviral drugs, cancer, heart disease, and the like will cause long-term harm to the nation’s future health.

            Nevertheless, tampering with islands’ lifelines to hospitals has an immediacy that everyone across the political spectrum can understand. If Democrats want to win back rural, working-class voters, this would be a good place to start. That includes you, Governor Mills, wherever you are.

Moscow on the Potomac

                                                         By David K. Shipler 

            Back in the bad old days of Soviet Communism, a dissident in Moscow was summoned for interrogation by the KGB, the secret police. As the agent ticked off a list of charges, the dissident rebutted each by citing one guarantee after another in the Soviet Constitution, which protected free speech, privacy, and other rights. “Please,” the KGB agent interrupted. “We’re having a serious conversation.”

            I have treasured that story since I heard it decades ago. It dramatized the difference between the Soviet and American systems, between a constitution of fictional rights and one of actual rights. When an American political scientist, Robert Kelley, taught for a semester at Moscow State University, he used to tell his students that if the United States had a state religion, it would be constitutional democracy.

            No more.

            President Trump and his zealous aides do not blatantly mock the Constitution in words, but they do so in actions. They are ignoring some of its central principles, particularly the separation of powers, defying both the legislative and judicial branches. And while I’m always diffident about drawing parallels since no analogy is perfect, I am feeling an uneasy sense of familiarity as Washington spirals down into a darker and darker place. Trump and his allies—plus Americans who are capitulating in their businesses, politics, and universities—would have fit comfortably in Moscow, where they would have survived and prospered.

            The essence of the American idea is the din of ideas, exactly what Soviet leaders found distasteful, and what American leaders are now trying to muffle. There was a way of thinking in the Soviet Union, which continues today in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, that eschewed pluralism and imposed conformity. Only a single truth was tolerated. Disagreements and debates were considered antithetical to the historical progress that Communist theory envisioned. Political irreverence might be heard quietly around the kitchen table, but elsewhere it was punished.

            That compulsion to dictate obedience was more about holding power than upholding Marxism. In authoritarian structures, the high perch can seem so precarious that legitimate disputes below look dangerously anarchic. Therefore, political loyalty is a prerequisite for key positions, which is Trump’s demand and erodes expertise. An American scientist who grew up in Moscow told me recently that Trump’s assault on academia reminded him of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, when “scientists were replaced by political appointees, which led to Chernobyl among other disasters.”  

Even such loyalty can be empty. Being accepted into Communist Party membership was more careerist than communist; without that party card, you couldn’t be an editor, history professor, factory manager, hospital director, and the like. As a result, cynicism prevailed. “Nobody believes in anything,” a 17-year-old girl told me in 1978. She was right. Soviet ideology had become a hollowed-out shell that could not keep the country from disintegrating in 1991.

            Russia’s autocracy soon returned, though; its long authoritarian history prevailed. The United States is only at the beginning of this chapter, which marks either an episode or a turning point, depending on how devoted to democracy Americans prove to be. So far, it doesn’t look good. In merely weeks since Trump’s inauguration, committed ideologues with dogmatic views  have penetrated most government agencies, operating under a personality cult unique in the American experience. Like most dictators, Trump covers his thin skin with toughness. He has forged an amalgam of lust for personal authority, revenge toward his opponents, white supremacy, and a totalitarian mindset that seeks a much broader remaking of America than is conventionally understood.

What is important to grasp—something the mainstream press has mostly missed—is that the belief system reaches far beyond government spending cuts. It seeks to saturate the entire society with a set of worldviews, as outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Harnessing the investigatory power and funding leverage of multiple agencies, the Trumpists are using government to dictate behavior and speech to universities, businesses, and law firms, and are gearing up to pressure news organizations, social media, secondary schools, and the arts.

All that was easier for Soviet officials, because the government owned every institution and means of production—every college and school, every newspaper and broadcaster, every store and restaurant and mine and factory. The Kremlin could turn off citizens’ phones, deny them travel abroad, fire them from jobs, and ultimately imprison them.

American society is not as easily tamed unless Americans allow it. But the goals are similar, and the US government turns out to have more intrusive power than many citizens realized over universities dependent on federal research grants, theaters reliant on arts funding, law firms depending on security clearances, businesses surviving on government contracts, hospitals kept afloat by Medicaid.

Trump’s zealots, who had four years out of office to prepare for this opportunity, are pulling those levers effectively, curtailing funds in one area to get changes in another. They threaten funds for learning-disabled children in secondary schools to force anti-historical teaching on race. They cut off medical research funds to force universities to suppress freedom of speech and to abandon programs that combat anti-minority discrimination. They ominously demand detailed data on minority and LGBTQ+ hiring at law firms. They sift digital files for the use of certain words by federal employees, contractors, and immigrants, just as certain terms are avoided by Afghans under the Taliban.

These and many other Trump actions are such obvious violations of the Constitution’s various protections that multiple federal judges, nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents, have peppered the administration with adverse rulings. There have been blatant violations of the Article I empowerment of Congress, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement for due process, and the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel. None of the cases have yet reached the Supreme Court for substantive judgment.

Undermining an independent judiciary is a key step in dismantling a democracy, as seen in Hungary, Venezuela, and elsewhere. And Trump seems intent on doing that. He and his officials have railed against judges, called for their impeachment, and ignored most of their rulings.

We are learning how little muscle the courts have to enforce their decisions. In the Soviet Union, judicial powerlessness was sardonically called “telephone justice,” meaning that the judge would call the local Communist Party secretary for instructions in key cases.

In the US, the tactic is outright disobedience. That might produce a different form of acquiescence, one that evades confrontation with an executive branch that seems intent on defiance. As in most power relationships, the American rule of law has depended on an unwritten compact of willing acceptance of judicial authority between the courts on the one hand, and citizens and officials on the other. That voluntary relationship is being shredded by Trump and his apparatchiks.

Acquiescing to the new authoritarian norms, higher courts could rule on narrow grounds: that those who brought the suits don’t have standing, or that the administration based its action on a legal basis different from the one the lower judge considered. Or, in certain areas, right-wing justices might give Trump victories, large and small, either because they agree to a so-called “unitary executive” with extensive authority or simply because they want their ruling obeyed.

Outside the myriad lawsuits, Americans have not shown much courage so far. Currying favor has emerged as a tactic in the private sector. For example, Columbia University, attempting to get Trump to restore $400 million in funds suspended because of antisemitism and anti-Israel protests, has agreed—at least on paper—to regulate demonstrations, combat antisemitism more firmly, enlarge the campus police force with the power of arrest, scrutinize and derecognize student groups for unspecified behavior, and increase the “intellectual diversity” of the faculty—which probably means hiring more conservatives.

Some lawyers have also caved. Under authoritarian regimes, it’s hard to find lawyers willing to defend the victims, and so Trump is intimidating firms that represent his opponents or sue the government. He has issued a memorandum to the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.” He has removed security clearances and access to federal buildings from some firms, which have lost important clients as a result. One of them, Paul, Weiss, agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work to support Trump’s agenda.

            Giving in reinforces autocracy. Without broad resistance, the day could come when an American citizen complains to an official about a violation of the Constitution, and the answer will be: “Please, we’re having a serious conversation.”

Gaza: Facts on the Ground

 

By David K. Shipler 

            In the late 1970s, Israel’s former general Ariel Sharon used to call Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories “facts on the ground.” As agriculture minister then, he provided the roads, wells, and power lines that made settlements possible. They would anchor the Israeli presence, he argued, making it hard to dislodge.

            He was accurate as far as the West Bank was concerned. Those settlements, proliferating over the decades, have balkanized the land that would be the heart of any Palestinian state.

But he himself dislodged the Israeli presence from the Gaza Strip. He still had a general’s mindset as he later became defense minister and then prime minister, and by 2005 had come to see the densely-populated territory as more liability than asset. His most notable and controversial act as prime minister was to end the occupation by withdrawing the army and sending Israeli soldiers to forcibly evict Israeli Jews from Gaza settlements.

The resentment and backlash by Israel’s religious right, combined with the area’s rapid takeover by Hamas militants, demonstrated the limitations of pure military calculations, which rarely consider politics, emotions, or the human quest for dignity. Israelis’ willingness to consider a Palestinian state was virtually obliterated by Hamas rockets.

Sharon was known for brutal retaliation, so if he were still alive and in power, he would surely be decimating Gaza as thoroughly as Israel has done since the intimate atrocities by Hamas fighters during their invasion of Oct 7, 2023. The resulting “facts on the ground”—some 80 percent of Gaza’s buildings destroyed or damaged, the bones of tens of thousands in the earth, a health care system and infrastructure in ruins, systematic sexual violence, over 2 million traumatized Palestinians struggling to survive—define a new reality not easily dislodged.

Save the Neutral Panama Canal

 

By David K. Shipler 

            PANAMA CITY, PANAMA—If President Trump takes over the Panama Canal, a wish he keeps pushing, he will be able to disrupt a significant chunk of global trade at his whim, rewarding and punishing countries he happens to like or dislike, as he has done with various measures in his first few weeks in office. The canal’s neutrality, enshrined in a US-Panama treaty, would be in jeopardy, and this shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would be compromised.

            On a trip through half the canal’s length last Sunday, and in subsequent research in two museums, I learned how easy it would be to weaponize the vital waterway. While most cargo through the canal is part of US trade, Trump could force long waiting times on certain other vessels, impose different fees for different countries, or even bar passage to ships transporting goods to or from disfavored nations.

That is, he could add the canal as a tool in the global and domestic protection racket that he has already devised with on-and-off tariffs, interrupted military aid, funding cuts to schools and universities, sanctions against lawyers who oppose him, and the like. Nothing in his behavior, even toward his own citizens, suggests that he would respect the Panama Canal’s universal accessibility, which served 170 countries last year.

Although Trump has railed against what he calls the high transit fees charged by Panama, it’s a good bet that his long-term desire is less about money than political leverage. His method of political leverage, based on bullying, would risk a popular backlash in Latin America, especially in Panama, and undermine US standing in the region.

Furthermore, the canal has water problems that only Panama can address from outside the strip that Trump wants to own.

Putin's Gamble

                                                         By David K. Shipler 

When Vladimir Putin sent Russian troops into Ukraine three years ago, he made several bets that might have seemed like sure things to him then. One, that Ukraine would quickly fold. Two, that the United States had no staying power. Three, that Europe was too fractured to mount effective resistance.

            Ukraine has fought valiantly, however. The US under President Biden mustered huge supplies of weaponry and diplomatic support. Europe united to provide even more aid than the US. And instead of crumbling, NATO added two new members, Sweden and Finland.

Nevertheless, Putin’s gamble finally began paying off last week, thanks to his admirer Donald Trump, who is so obviously volatile that next week might be different. Putin once labeled him unpredictable. By contrast, the Russian leader has the patience of a chess master—albeit an emotional player, as I wrote in the Washington Monthly two months before the invasion.

His long game relies on a wish and a belief: his wishful, messianic ambition to expand and restore a Russian empire, and his passionate belief that Western democracies are vulnerable to moral decay, internal disorder, and external subversion.

He is acting in both these dimensions simultaneously, and now has a willing (or unwitting) partner in President Trump.

Russia has tried to accelerate the decline of democracies by exacerbating domestic divisions with online disinformation during elections, which probably helped elect Trump in 2016. Moscow is promoting pro-Russian parties in Germany and other NATO states, a Russian interference campaign that has been joined by Elon Musk and Vice President J. D. Vance, who have championed rightwing European parties with neo-Nazi sympathies.

Trump Defunds the Police

 

By David K. Shipler 

            There are several ways to curb law enforcement. One is to cut off funding literally, as a minority of Black Lives Matter protesters urged. Another is to redirect some money from uniformed officers to social workers and mental health counselors, which is what many demonstrators meant by “defund the police.” Still another is to release convicted violent assailants of police officers. Or to ignore specific laws; declare no intention to enforce them; and to investigate, fire, and intimidate prosecutors and policing authorities who combat certain crimes.

            President Trump is doing all of those things except, of course, moving money to mental health services. He and his consigliere, Elon Musk, have frozen spending broadly enough to impede law enforcement. Trump has fired most of the inspectors-general who investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. He has frozen hiring at the IRS and discussed laying off 9,000 employees to undercut tax enforcement. He has pardoned men found guilty of violently attacking police officers on January 6. He has removed veteran specialists from counter-terrorism work in the Justice Department, robbing the country of expertise in a critical area of national security.

            He has announced that the law prohibiting Americans from bribing foreign officials to get contracts abroad will no longer be enforced. He has defied the congressional statute, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, that bans Chinese-owned TikTok and has promised no prosecutions of companies that continue to distribute the prohibited platform.

            He has stymied three agencies that enforce laws protecting workers and customers of banks and credit card companies by shutting down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and illegally firing the Democratic-appointed chair of the National Labor Relations Board and two of three Democrats on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Trump: Promises Made, Promises Broken

 

By David K. Shipler 

                One of President Trump’s campaign slogans most popular with his supporters was the mantra, “Promises Made, Promises Kept.” But the most important promises that presidents are obligated to keep are those made by their country. And in merely three weeks, Trump has broken multiple solemn promises made by the United States, many longstanding and life-saving.

                His message is clear: Don’t trust America.

If you work for our soldiers in war and are promised safe passage to the US, don’t believe it. If you’re promised continuing treatment with HIV medication, don’t believe it. If the world’s leading democracy promises to keep supporting your pro-democracy efforts in your not-so-democratic country, don’t believe it. If you’ve obtained a hard-won promise to fund effective work combating sex-trafficking, civil conflict, ethnic strife, or radicalization that leads to terrorism, don’t believe it. If you have a subcontract or a lease or an employment commitment from a non-profit organization funded by the US, don’t trust it. Don’t think that promised funds for hospitals, ports, roads, or other development projects already underway will actually be paid—unless the money is coming from China.   

                Don’t trust any international agreement with the United States, not on nuclear weapons, climate change, or trade. Don’t believe in any alliance with Washington. Don’t think that common security interests or economic interdependency protects you from a blizzard of broken promises.

If you’re in the US, don’t believe the promise of a written contract based on federal funding; it can be scuttled at midnight. If you’re a federal employee, don’t believe in the promises of the law, civil service protection, due process, or even plain ethics; you can be kicked out of your office in an instant. Don’t believe that your long expertise will protect you; in fact, it is likely to hurt you, since the Trump movement resents, vilifies, and distrusts “experts.”

Do not, under any circumstances, text or email anything sensitive, particularly with such terms as “gender” or “diversity.” Use the phone if you have to communicate. Don’t trust your coworker, who might be an informant.

Trump's Coup d'Etat

 

By David K. Shipler 

                Anyone who has seen the overthrow of a country’s government, either peacefully or by force, must be watching the United States with an uneasy sense of familiarity. In less than two weeks since his inauguration, President Trump and his zealous staff have committed offenses typically associated with a sudden takeover of an unstable autocracy.

Is this what most voters who elected Trump wished for? While stopping short of arresting political opponents (so far), the new regime has threatened criminal investigations of disfavored officials, begun ideological purges in government agencies, ordered federal workers to inform on colleagues, yanked security details from former officials who criticized Trump, risked the health of millions by halting worldwide humanitarian programs, erased essential medical information from government websites, pressed colleges to report on foreign students’ supposed antisemitism, undone rules against racial and gender discrimination, dictated that schools nationwide indoctrinate children with a “patriotic” curriculum, and more.

 The widespread destruction of norms and institutions, aimed at creating immense vacuums to be filled with a new belief system, has never before been seen in the United States. It reflects an aspiration that might be called totalism—not totalitarianism, which connotes complete subservience of the population to the will of the state. But rather, an effort to infuse both government and civil society, as totally as feasible, with a comprehensive ideology. Part of that is borne of a distaste for government itself, except when used to expand raw presidential power.

This cannot be accomplished within the confines of the Constitution’s separation of powers and the republic’s decentralization of authority to the states. Therefore, Trump has been ignoring the legislative branch—the laws passed by Congress—and in one case so far (not shutting down TikTok), ignoring both the legislative and judicial branches. He also seems poised to bully recalcitrant states by withholding federal aid.

Trump Leads America Through the Looking Glass

 

By David K. Shipler 

     Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “One can’t believe impossible things.”

 “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” 

                The United States is capitulating to one-man rule so rapidly that only Lewis Carroll could describe the absurd fantasies that Americans have accepted.

                Consider this: The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, flatterer and purchaser of President Donald Trump, gives two straight-arm, Nazi-type salutes at a Trump Inauguration Day rally, and the Anti-Defamation League, which touts itself as “the leading anti-hate organization in the world,” dismisses it as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute.”

Judge for yourself. Watch these two videos, one of Musk, one of Hitler: Compare.

And consider this: The number of illegal entries from Mexico drops to a four-year low, and Trump declares a state of emergency at the southern border. The country’s oil and gas production reaches an all-time high, and Trump declares an energy emergency. The violent crime rate drops steeply, lowest among non-citizens, and Trump pictures a crime wave driven by immigrants. The society spends decades combating discrimination against minorities and women of merit, and Trump calls for a meritocracy by demolishing the programs that are achieving it. What’s more, big companies rush to follow his lead back into bigotry.

To appear to be a solver, Trump needs problems to tackle. And since his remade Republican Party is still averse to attacking the real problems of its own working-class supporters, who have financial trouble in everyday life, Trump needs fake problems. Then he can conjure up fake solutions to the fake problems, crow about his progress, and—evidently—fool most of the people most of the time. And that’s a most distressing feature of this new American era, which might be called Make America Gullible Again.

It is not remarkable that a charlatan could come along in American politics. The world is full of con artists. They once traveled from town to town selling magical potions to make your hair grow or infuse perpetual youth. Now they’re online weaseling millions of dollars from lonely people lured into the mirages of love affairs and financial windfalls. And also online, Trump will benefit from his billionaire friends who run social media companies. In trepidation or collaboration, they have abandoned fact-checking and opened their platforms to Trumpist alternative realities.

Defending Minorities Against the Defense Secretary

 

By David K. Shipler 

                The one true thing that Pete Hegseth said in his Senate confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary this week was that the military is a better place for minorities than perhaps any other American institution. What he fails to recognize is how much work it has taken to get there, and how much it will take to stay there. That point was not even made by Democratic senators as they berated him about his history of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and lack of management experience. It was a missed opportunity for serious discussion.

Hegseth railed, mostly unchallenged, against programs promoting DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and pictured “wokeness” as antithetical to the lethality essential in a fighting force. Yet actual experience shows the opposite: racial, religious, and gender tolerance has to be taught, sadly, and if it isn’t, fissures can open to the military’s detriment.

In 1971, after the decay of military cohesion as racial tensions and violence spiked among troops during the Vietnam War, the Pentagon established the Defense Race Relations Institute, now named the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). There, military trainers operate on a pragmatic philosophy about the interaction between bias and readiness. They summed it up for me years ago, when I visited DEOMI several times while researching A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America: You can think anything you want; that’s your business. But what you do becomes our business if you undermine your unit’s cohesion and fighting effectiveness.    

Like most conservatives, Hegseth apparently believes that the natural landscape is a level playing field, and that doing nothing will guarantee a meritocracy devoid of privilege for one group or another. (Or, perhaps more likely, he and other conservatives make this self-serving argument to preserve white males’ longstanding advantages.)

Not only is Hegseth’s position oblivious to the nation’s history, it’s also blind to the future. Halting diversity efforts allows institutions to snap back into old patterns of bias and discrimination. The military “does not do the equal opportunity and fair treatment business because it’s the nice thing to do,” I was told back then by DEOMI’s director of training, army Colonel Eli A. Homza Jr., who was white. “We do it because we have learned that if we don’t do it, we will not have cohesive and battle-ready units.”

The Fragile World

 

By David K. Shipler                 

                As of January 20, when Donald Trump is inaugurated, the world’s three strongest nuclear powers will all be led by criminals. Only Trump has been convicted, but Vladimir Putin faces an outstanding arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court—for his war crime of abducting children from Ukraine to Russia—and Xi Jinping should face one for his genocide against the Muslim Uighurs in China. Trump has obviously been found guilty of much less—mere business fraud—although he was justifiably charged with mishandling classified documents; obstruction of justice; and attempting, in effect, to overturn the linchpin of electoral democracy.

                The world is in the throes of criminality. Where government is weak—or complicit—organized crime or terrorism often fills the vacuum. In Mexico, cartels manufacture drugs freely and now control the conduits of illegal immigration into the United States. In areas of Myanmar ravaged by internal combat, narcotics producers are in open collusion with Chinese traffickers, and kidnap victims are forced onto the internet to scam the unsuspecting out of their life savings. And so on, amid a sprawling disintegration of order.

    Moreover, warfare has widened far beyond the familiar headlines. Not only in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan, but in 42 countries total, wars are raging: invasions, insurgencies, ethnic conflicts, and militias fighting over precious resources. Combined with drought and storms fueled by the earth’s unprecedented warming, the wars are uprooting millions in the most massive human displacement of modern history. As of last June, an estimated 122.6 million people were living as refugees worldwide after having been driven from their homes by violent conflict, persecution, and human rights violations, according to the UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency. Another 21.5 million people each year, on average, are forced out by droughts, floods, wildfires, and stifling temperatures.

                  Into this maelstrom come Trump and his eccentric minions with their wrecking balls and decrees, soon to be taught the inevitable Lesson of Uncertainties: The outside world can be neither controlled nor ignored by Washington. It intrudes in unexpected ways, defies prediction, and resists domination. It pushes presidents around.

    Therefore, while some sure things are probably in store, it’s more useful to examine questions, not answers, regarding what the new year might bring.

Putin Advises Trump on Oligarchs

 

By David K. Shipler 

                “Donnie, do you know the difference between you and me?” Vladimir Putin asked Donald J. Trump in a brief phone call yesterday. “It’s a riddle.”

                “Don’t call me Donnie,” Trump said. “Or I’ll call you Vladdie.”

                “Hey, don’t get so upset, comrade,” said Putin. “I’m just trying to make you think you’re my friend.”

                “And don’t call me comrade till Tulsi Gabbard gets confirmed. She’ll be thrilled, but she’s got to get past some leftover ‘experts’ in the party who don’t admire you.”

                “Don’t admire me?” Putin replied. “That’s impossible. Everybody I know admires me.”

                “Me too,” said Trump. “Oh, shit, I said, ‘Me too.’ I take it back. I’ve banned that expression. Nobody who works for me can say ‘me too.’ But they all love me, Vlad, they really do. I’m loved from the minute I get up—well, after I leave Melania behind in the bedroom—until the minute I go to bed. Well, if I go to bed before her.”

                “Come on, Donnie, guess the riddle.”

                “Stop with the Donnie.”

                “OK, MISTER PRESIDENT, what’s the difference between you and me?”

                “You don’t have my hair,” said Trump.

                “Slava Bogu!” Putin replied. “That means glory of God. You’d say thank God. But you don’t believe in God, do you, Donnie?”

                “Absolutely not. Don’t tell the evangelicals. What’s he ever done for me? I’ve done it all myself. He’s a hoax, like climate change.”

                “Climate change isn’t a hoax, Donnie. Now come on, the riddle.”

                “I give up,” said Trump.

                “You give up easily, comrade. Kamala was right, you know. You’re weak. You wouldn’t last two minutes in the Kremlin. The knees on your million-dollar suits would wear out from groveling. But in the White House? I’m going to love it when you’re there.”

                “OK, so that’s the difference? You’re a strongman and I’m a weakman?”

                “You’re getting close,” said Putin. “The difference is that my oligarchs do what I tell them or I take their billions and throw them in jail or out a hotel window. But you—you do what your oligarchs tell you. They run you. You worship them and fear them. You’re afraid that their contributions to your slush funds will dry up and they’ll say mean things on X and won’t keep Republicans in line. You’re afraid of that little twerp Elon Musk. Here in Moscow, I create Elon Musks and obliterate them when they get uppity. That’s the difference, Donnie Boy.”

                The recording of the call goes silent for a few seconds. It seems to be ended until a faint sigh is heard, then the voice of Trump: “I gotta hang up and go play golf with Elon, but I hate it. He always wins, even when I cheat. See you next year in Kyiv.” 

This is satire. It’s all made up (except for what isn't), a disclosure made necessary by the absurdity of current reality, which prevents lots of people from telling the difference between truth and fiction.

                 

From Democracy to Kakistocracy

 

By David K. Shipler 

Kakistocracy, n: government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state 

[Note: Bowing to the influence of The Shipler Report, Gaetz withdrew only hours after this was posted.]

            When President Richard Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970, his lack of intellectual heft was defended by Republican Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska, who famously declared: “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters, and Cardozos.”

            The Senate rejected Carswell, with 13 Republicans joining Democrats in voting no.

            Ah, for the good old days. This time around, it is not just mediocrity that is ascending to power but wild incompetence seasoned with wackiness. From Donald Trump on down, the federal government is about to be converted into a cesspool of financial and moral corruption, and into a juggernaut of fact-free autocratic decrees, political arrests, and military roundups. At least that’s Trump’s goal, which his key nominees are poised to pursue.

If Hruska were still with us, he would have to update his argument by noting that the country’s sexual assailants also deserve “a little representation.” Since most voters just elected a court-proven sexual assailant president, he would surely find sympathy in the supine Senate. And remember, Republicans in years past confirmed Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court despite credible accusations, respectively, of sexual harassment and assault. Today, Trump seems partial to men who do that kind of thing, since the accused (but not proven) assailants he’s picked for his Cabinet include Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services.

The Democratic Party's New Playbook

 

By David K. Shipler 

                The Shipler Report has obtained an early draft of the National Democratic Committee’s manual for the next presidential candidate. It is the result of the post-election self-flagellation that only Democrats can perform with such alacrity. Here it is: 

                “Dear Candidate (insert name),

                Donald J. Trump has become a model of how to win elections in the new America. Following his successful campaign in 2024, we strongly recommend adopting his top ten techniques, as follows: 

1.      Begin to lie as soon as your lips start moving.

2.      Use only superlatives, as in, “We will have the best hurricanes ever,” and, “We have the worst open sewers in history. Nobody has ever seen anything like it.”

3.      Read Mein Kampf – great tips

4.      Terrify the citizenry and badmouth the country as swarming with swarthy, pet-eating ex-convicts and insane, blood-poisoning invaders.

5.      Use these four words often, no matter what the problem, imagined or real: “I will fix it.”

6.      Ramble for hours incoherently in front of large audiences by “weaving” unrelated digressions into a tangled web that makes you seem cognitively impaired.

7.      Sell Bibles that include an extra New Testament book with your name, and a preface reading, “The Gospel According to _________.” Price it exorbitantly so people know it’s valuable.

8.      Sell bright blue MAGA hats, but don’t tell anyone that the initials stand for “Make America Gullible Again.”

9.      Pretend to perform a sex act with a microphone.

10.  Lose millions in lawsuits for sexual assault, and keep bragging about grabbing women’s pussies. Most men love that, and millions of women do, too.”

This is satire. It’s all made up (except for what isn't), a disclosure made necessary by the absurdity of current reality, which prevents lots of people from telling the difference between truth and fiction.

Uneducating America

                                                         By David K. Shipler 

                Imagine a democratic country where voters ended a political campaign knowing more about the difficult issues than they did at the beginning. Imagine the learning experience of hearing presidential candidates seriously discussing how to curb the wars in Europe and the Middle East, compete sensibly with China, retard climate change, address the coming revolution of AI, open economic opportunity for the impoverished, reduce racial discrimination, and gain control over immigration. Now flip that upside down and you have the world’s supposed model of democracy, the United States of America.

                On the tasks before us, we understand less and less. If we once believed we lived in a free-market economy with prices set mainly by supply and demand, the campaign has taught us to think that a president has all the power and so should get all the blame—or credit—for our struggles or our prosperity, whichever happens to occur during an administration.

                If we ever understood the limits of US control over global conflicts, we are now convinced that an omnipotent president could stop Russia vs. Ukraine and Israel vs. Hamas and Hezbollah.

                If we ever took the trouble to grasp the complex forces of desperation and hope that drive immigrants from their violent homelands to ours, we can no longer be bothered with anything but simplistic measures and instant cures.

                Elections seem to dumb us down. Its practitioners filter out the nuance, contradictions, and history essential to forming smart policy. We retreat into our caves of certainty and disparage the “undecideds.”

The First Chill of Self-Censorship

                                                         By David K. Shipler

                The decisions by the rich men who own the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post to kill their editorial boards’ endorsements of Kamala Harris are reminders of how an authoritarian culture works. It has official censors, of course, but the system’s everyday mechanism doesn’t always rely on edicts from on high. It can operate automatically as private citizens police themselves and their peers, avoiding risk and informing on those who deviate or dissent.

                That is how the surveillance state of the Soviet Union functioned. Editors and writers knew instinctively what content was permitted in their newspapers and broadcasts; they were Communist Party members themselves, so official censorship was internalized, embedded in their professional judgments. There wasn’t much the censors needed to delete.

                In schools and workplaces, fellow students and colleagues were on guard against political irreverence and would report it. Pressure and punishment were often exacted there, at that level by those institutions. The same is happening today in Russia, which has been dragged backward by Vladimir Putin. In other words, the authoritarian structure presses people horizontally as well as vertically, not only from the top down but also from within the lowly communities where individuals live their lives.

                Oh, please, some of you will say. The US is not Russia. We have a passionate tradition of free debate, suspicion of government, and fervent individualism. “It Can’t Happen Here,” you might insist, the ironic title of Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel about a fascist who rises to power in America—and who holds a huge rally in Madison Square Garden, by the way, its adoring crowd described with prescience by Lewis decades before Donald Trump’s ugly rally there this week.

Trump is trying to seed the ground for that dynamic of self-policing. He has illuminated the most significant divide in America, which is between those who see it coming and those who do not. You can call it the divide between the left and the right, or between Democrats and Republicans, or between Blacks and whites, or women and men, or college and high-school graduates. Those lines exist. But more fundamentally, it is a divide between those who understand how pluralistic democracy can be undermined along an insidious path toward autocracy, and those who do not. Apparently, Americans don’t study this. Our schools have failed miserably.

The Absolutism of Trump Republicans

                                                        By David K. Shipler  

            Democracy thrives on shades of gray. Few public issues actually divide themselves starkly into black and white. And even when disagreements are unyielding, a government “of the people” needs to embrace a variety of views, accommodate differences, and include a supple give-and-take. That’s the ideal, essential to a pluralistic political system in an open society.

Yet that is not the ideal of the Trump Republican Party. Instead, in a corruption of yesterday’s refined conservativism that preached smaller government, it plans to transform government into a powerful monolith imposing ideological absolutism on many areas of American life—private as well as public.

This can be seen most vividly in the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which Donald Trump has disavowed, although the most extreme provisions were written by his administration’s former officials who are likely to serve with him again if he’s elected.

The agenda is invasive. Women would be required to give their reasons for having legal abortions, and doctors would have to report the information to their states, which would lose funds if they failed to collect and relay the answers to the federal government. The data wouldn’t have the women’s names, supposedly, but the very demand would trespass into personal zones of intimacy.

States where abortion is legal would have trouble making it accessible, because any clinic that provided abortions would be denied Medicaid funds for anything, including providing other health services, thereby putting most of them out of business. While federal law prohibits payment for abortions by Medicaid, which covers low-income Americans, clinics can be reimbursed for other health care. This would be a back-door way of virtually banning abortion nationwide.

The Year of Moral Loss

 

By David K. Shipler             

              The deep paradox in the Arab-Israeli conflict is the immorality of each side’s moral certitude. Each is convinced of its righteousness.

But the high ground of righteousness has been completely flattened in the last year, beginning with the intimate atrocities of October 7 by the Palestinian movement Hamas, then with the remotely inflicted atrocities by Israel. The only shred of morality left is whatever attaches to victimhood.

              Not that wars are moral enterprises. Not that this conflict has ever been ethical or conducted within Queensberry rules. Since modern Israel’s founding in 1948, the struggle has been nasty, grinding, and brutalizing. Still, it respected certain boundaries. Forty years ago, the Palestinians had not yet adopted suicide bombers as a standard weapon against Israeli civilians, nor had they sexually assaulted and tormented young Israeli women. Israel had not sent tanks and fighter jets against Palestinian residents of Gaza and the West Bank, nor had Jewish settlers so systematically driven Palestinians from their West Bank villages. And non-Arab actors such as Iran had not directly attacked Israel.

              But now, as Tom Friedman has said, so many red lines have been crossed that “you kind of get used to it. And at the end of the day, there are no more red lines. And when that happens, watch out.”

              Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are diverse and fluid. Neither is monolithic; both contain moderate citizens embracing coexistence. Yet the most radical and hateful among them have been propelled into power by decades of strife. Palestinian leaders see all Israelis, including children, as potential soldiers. Israeli leaders in the current government—the most extreme in Israel’s history—conflate all Palestinians in Gaza with Hamas, one reason that Israel is willing to bomb whole buildings and kill many civilians to get one commander. On both sides, those at the top seem to have no moral brakes.

              Their military tactics have been devastating to non-combatants. Abhorrent methods of warfare have been normalized: sadistic killings and hostage-taking, food deprivation and massive bombings, indiscriminate rocketing, assassinations, exploding pagers designed to murder and maim even while innocent bystanders suffer. Hamas has embedded its fighters among civilians in their homes and schools and hospitals, using innocents as human shields. Undeterred, the Israelis have fought through those so-called shields, mostly with air strikes and artillery, killing and wounding tens of thousands, impeding food supplies, and shattering medical facilities.

Trump Channels America's Deepest Racism

 

By David K. Shipler 

              If you spread out on a table all the categories of stereotyping inflicted upon Blacks and other people of color throughout the history of the United States, you’ll see how some of the ugliest are being chosen and brandished by Donald Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance. Like crude weapons of mass destruction, these instruments of bigotry cannot be precisely targeted. They wound both their intended victims and mere bystanders—and perhaps, in the end, the perpetrators themselves.

              The latest example is the poisonous lie that Haitian immigrants, who came to this country in the naïve belief that it would be a refuge of safety and opportunity, are stealing and eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio. That Trump and Vance would repeat and inflate this toxic nonsense after the city’s officials denied its truth exposes, first, their own hatred toward “others,” and second, their faith that the hatred is harbored by millions of American voters.

              The concocted story fits the longstanding American narrative of Blacks as primitive, violent, immoral, and unclean. Those supposed traits helped feed the rationalizations of slavery, persisted through the Jim Crow era of legal segregation, and continue in the barely concealed warrens of today’s right-wing electorate.

Trump has proved dangerously skillful in tapping this base bigotry. Whether by instinct or calculation, he locates and gives voice to the worst characteristics of his society. He garners broad support by his vicious fabrication that immigrants are invading as hordes of disease-ridden criminals released from prisons and mental institutions abroad. It doesn’t matter that official statistics show lower crime rates among immigrants than native-born Americans. It doesn’t matter that most are fleeing persecution and danger to the ideal that they imagine America to be. It doesn’t matter that the two would-be assassins who have targeted Trump were white Americans.

He doesn’t have to say explicitly that the hordes are swarthy; the picture in his voters’ minds is clear enough. Evidently, he says what many people think. And what they think, about Blacks in particular, has deep roots in American culture.

The stereotypes fall into five basic categories, as I saw during five years of research for my book A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America. Others may find different patterns, but in my interviewing across the country, negative images of Blacks seemed to organize themselves around these themes: Body, Mind, Morality, Violence, and Power.

Targeting America

 

By David K. Shipler 

              The bullet just grazed Donald Trump, but it struck the heart of America.

At a moment of critical care for a suffering democracy, the assassination attempt last night in Pennsylvania further weakens the stamina of an ailing culture of pluralistic politics. It adds toxins to the chemistry of the country. It has already provoked blame rather than introspection. Instead of strengthening Americans’ bonds of common citizenship, as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy did sixty years ago, this near miss will only deepen the divisions. It will be taken to justify the rage, hatred, and passion for revenge that Trump himself has fostered.

Moreover, it is hard to see how that apostle of autocracy fails to get elected in November. This bolsters the image of macho victimhood he has promoted, an ironic way of channeling the alienation and sense of helplessness felt by millions of white working-class voters who adore him. He was a cult figure before and now, in near martyrdom, he perfects the performance. Before allowing Secret Service agents to move him to safety, he needs to play his part, so he tells them, “Wait,” is helped to his feet, his bloody ear now visible as he raises his fist and apparently shouts, “Fight!”  And fight they will, in one way or another.

This Sunday morning, there have undoubtedly been preachers crediting God, as Trump did in a post, for making the bullets narrowly miss. Some of his followers believe he has been divinely assigned to lead the nation, and this will be taken to prove their case. And there have surely been preachers admonishing their congregations to seek reconciliation, to gaze inward, to love the other, to examine themselves for the wrongs that they and the broader society must right.

The sermons on taking responsibility and seeking healing and listening to the other side will not make the front pages, sadly. They will not generate a lot of followers on social media or even find their way into most politicians’ stump speeches on the campaign trail. Senator J. D. Vance, a possible vice-presidential candidate, instantly blamed President Biden’s harsh rhetoric against Trump for a shooting whose motives were still unknown. Vance didn’t mention Trump’s years of violent rhetoric, of course, or his vitriol loosening the restraints of civil order, culminating in the January 6, 2021 invasion of the Capitol by his violent supporters.

That’s the nature of American political leadership today. Some of the worst people rise to some of the highest levels.

What Trump and his Republican acolytes—including those on the Supreme Court—fail to realize is that whatever they unleash in governmental power or private aggression can be used by the left as well as the right. In other words, the authors themselves can someday be the targets. In her dissent from the Court’s recent grant of broad presidential immunity against criminal prosecution, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that a president could now “order the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” and avoid prosecution. Her hypothesis, signed by the three liberal justices, drew no distinction between a Republican or a Democratic president.

At this writing, the public knows little about the alleged shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was killed by the Secret Service. He was white and apparently not an immigrant, so Trumpists won’t be able to blame all people of color and all immigrants, as many (Trump included) are wont to do for the ills of the country. He was not a member of Seal Team 6, evidently, so Biden’s off the hook for using his newfound powers from the Supreme Court. Crooks was reportedly a registered Republican who gave a small contribution a Democratic cause, so take your choice about his reasons for wanting to take Trump out.

Unless his online posts, friends, and family offer insights, a vacuum of information on his disturbed thinking will allow room for fantastic conspiracy theories. Those will further deteriorate the health of the society, and a society’s health depends on how self-corrective it is, especially in a moment of crisis.

It doesn’t look good for the United States. In this heated atmosphere, political violence begets more political violence. It would not be amazing for some of Trump’s militant supporters to take up arms against any target they deem worthy of their attention. Trump has called for unity but not peace. He might be incapable of preaching nonviolence to those who love him and value his raised fist. We’ll see.

What does appear reliably predictable is that a weak-looking, impaired Joe Biden cannot win over Trump. If Biden remains the candidate, Trump will be inaugurated next January. And at that moment, the world’s three most powerful countries will be led by criminals. Granted, only one will have been convicted. But Xi Jinping of China for his persecution of the Uighurs and Vladimir Putin of Russia for his war of atrocities in Ukraine certainly deserve prosecution. If you think of Trump’s crimes as minor, just wait.

The bullet that Trump heard whizzing past his ear? We all heard it as it found its mark.

America's Gathering Storm

 

By David K. Shipler 

              It’s too bad that Supreme Court justices and other government leaders aren’t required to live for two or three years in some dictatorship before they take office in the United States. Better yet, in one of the countries that have used democracy to undermine democracy. Then perhaps they would recognize the signs of a gathering storm, when the friction of the air seems to change and the wind turns ominous.

              The Supreme Court and the Republican Party are laying the ground for autocracy. They are corrupting the constitutional interplay among the three branches of government, among the shared and competing interests in a complex society, and therefore among the rulers and the ruled.

              The Republicans have abdicated the key role that political parties must play in every free society—filtering out extremist demagogues. And the radical right on the Supreme Court has now granted broad immunity to presidents who commit crimes with “official acts.” This junction of political and judicial mischief could not come at a more perilous time, with a Republican authoritarian poised to return to the presidency carrying a coherent ideological blueprint he did not have in hand his first time around. He would commit felonies against democracy virtually unfettered. This is the perfect storm.

Israel vs. Hamas: "Whose Side Are You On?"

 

By David K. Shipler 

                On Monday, October 9, two days after the assault by Hamas on innocent civilians in Israel, Kalpana Shipler was asked by a fellow student at her public high school in Washington, D.C., “Whose side are you on?” That was the question being tossed around by multiple teenagers to one another as Israel began bombing Gaza in retaliation. And that seems to be the question dividing college campuses and mobilizing protests, corrupting the capacity to analyze complexity. If you are forced to pick sides, you miss the tangles of guilt that have bound Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs for decades.

                Kalpana didn’t fall into the trap, I am proud to say as her grandfather. She was wise enough at age 15 to resist an instant answer, to know that she didn’t know, a rare skill in today’s America. She deferred to the cause of learning.

                Luckily, young people coming of age are not yet jaded. Shocked by the scenes of devastation and starvation in Gaza, students have acted on a purity of outrage, pushing the envelope of accepted rhetoric and calling to account their own country, Israel’s major supporter.

Yet the impulse to pick a side, as if war were a football game, has an unhealthy feature. It concentrates the blame, villainizing one adversary and idealizing the other. The dichotomy was prevalent among some activists who justifiably protested the U.S. war in Vietnam and decried our ally’s (South Vietnam’s) assaults on human rights, while regarding North Vietnam and the Vietcong as the only authentic patriots, skipping over the North’s tighter dictatorship and the VC’s brutality.

                A similar intellectual and moral flaw runs through the current protests over the Gaza war, in which Israel is supposedly “a monopoly of violence,” in the words of a Cornell professor. Palestinians through Hamas, which strives to replace the Jewish state with an Islamic state, are portrayed as exercising their anti-colonialist rights to liberty. Sometimes—only sometimes—vilification of the Jewish state has crossed into vilification of Jews, raising the stench of antisemitism in the “pro-Palestinian” encampments. They might be called “antiwar” encampments if they actually opposed war, if they protested not only against the atrocities Israel has committed in an effort to stamp out Hamas—the vast bombing, the barriers to food and medical care—but also against the intimate atrocities by Hamas—the rapes, torture, mutilation, and kidnappings—which unleashed this fighting.

It was astonishing to see 33 Harvard student organizations sign onto a statement issued by the Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee immediately after October 7 holding “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Seriously? “Today’s events did not occur in a vacuum,” the statement declared. “The apartheid regime is the only one to blame. Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinians existence for 75 years. . . Palestinians have been forced to live in a sate of death, both slow and sudden.”

                 So spoke some of the purportedly smartest people of the next generation. One can imagine them delighting in their incisive brilliance as they looked past the Hamas violence into its roots. Fine. There is never a vacuum. There are causes of every effect. However, to turn back only one page in a long history of mutual victimization demonstrates a laziness of mind or, perhaps, a mind indoctrinated.

If you are pro-Israel, do you leave out the thuggish gangs of Jewish settlers terrorizing and assaulting West Bank Palestinians? If you are pro-Palestinian, do you omit Israel’s military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinian self-government under Hamas arming itself and rocketing Israel? If you are pro-Israel, do you leave out the stifling border controls that suffocated Gaza’s development and fostered poverty? If you root only for the Palestinians, do you ignore the Hamas suicide bombers sent against Jews two decades ago to torpedo the growing Israeli acceptance of Palestinian statehood?

In your journey back in time, do you stop before Arab armies attacked the fledgling Jewish state? Do you stop before the Israelis’ expulsion of Arabs from their home villages before and during Israel’s 1948 war of independence? Do you stop before the earlier Arab assaults on religious Jewish communities in the Holy Land or, on the other side, the Jewish assaults on Arab civilians there? Do you stop before the Holocaust? Before the pogroms of Europe, which so traumatized the Jewish people that its reverberations still ring today?

If you are looking for the original sin in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, keep going, and going, and going until you come to realize that both sides are victims. This is not moral equivalence. This is suffering that is particular to each people, not to be measured or weighed, but—if you want to campaign against war—to be acknowledged. As an Israeli said to me long ago, putting two victims together is like mixing fire and kerosene.

Victimhood confers an illusion of moral immunity. “The sense of victimhood is functional for a nation that is involved in an ongoing bloody conflict,” wrote the Israeli thinkers Daniel Bar-Tal and Elkiva Eldar in the newspaper Haaretz. “It shapes the perception of the threatening situation against the cruel enemy and provides moral justification for harming it unrestrainedly and without mercy. Victimhood distinguishes between us and the Palestinians and provides a sense of moral superiority and permission to dehumanize them. . . . Victimhood severs the society from a sense of guilt and leaves room only for feelings of anger and revenge.”

The same might be said of the Palestinian side.

So, how does complexity figure into the student-led protests? It doesn’t. Demonstrations don’t do nuance. They are meant to be categorical and dogmatic. They are not dispassionate classroom exercises in the ambiguities and contradictions of history, politics, and warfare. They are meant to galvanize, excite, force change, and call on the clarity of conscience. They don’t even have to be practical, as in thinking that university divestments from companies doing business in Israel, one of their demands, will tip Israel’s policies. What could tip Israel’s policies, imposing a modicum of restraint, are the Biden Administration’s recent delay in certain weapons shipments, steps that might have been propelled partly by those students on the quads and greens.

The campus protests have amplified the growing American disaffection with Israel’s unvarnished brutality against Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli excuses and rationalizations notwithstanding. Yes, Hamas uses civilians as shields and shelters fighters in networks of tunnels, some under hospitals. Does that justify attacking the civilian shields and devastating hospitals? Yes, Hamas smuggles weaponry into Gaza. Does that justify restricting trucks of food and medical supplies destined for children, women, the elderly? The “pro-Palestinian” protesters would presumably say no. “Antiwar” protesters would presumably hold both sides in contempt.

            In true antiwar demonstrations, the symbols, the pieces of colored cloth woven into specific patterns, might be carried together. In true antiwar protests, wartime grief would be common ground. The Palestinian and Israeli flags might be intertwined, perhaps even tangled. Some demonstrators might want to burn them, as some Vietnam era antiwar protesters burned the American flag. But then, some leaders of the that antiwar movement thought it would be a more poignant symbol to wash the flag. What if both Israeli and Palestinian flags were washed in the middle of a college green?

The War of Atrocities

 

By David K. Shipler 

            In a grisly coincidence, the UN within 24 hours has documented two outrages of the Israel-Gaza war that will permanently scar the lives of those who survive: Sexual crimes by Hamas, which probably continue against young Israeli women who are still hostages. And severe malnutrition among tens of thousands of Palestinian children, some at critical stages of brain development.

A team headed by the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict confirmed most earlier reports of sexual assaults by Hamas fighters who invaded Israel from Gaza on October 7. But in addition, the UN task force found “clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity and has reasonable grounds to believe that this violence may be ongoing.” The team did not say, but everyone knows, that the deep trauma suffered by such victims is likely to be ongoing as well, perhaps lifelong.

In what might aptly be called divine injustice, the hostages taken October 7, and evidently still being held, include seven young female soldiers from the Nahal Oz military base, an intelligence hub. Women agents there had picked up strong indicators of the coming Hamas attack and repeatedly urged their male superior officers—in vain—to take preventive action.

Whether the hostages are the same women who sounded the alarm is not publicly known, but they are from the same unit. That they should suffer such intimate brutality because they or their colleagues were ignored ought to haunt the incompetent government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its somnolent security apparatus. Furthermore, Israeli officials have reportedly worried that Hamas would rather kill the women than release them to tell the world of their torment.

At the same time, the UN’s World Health Organization has warned that famine is “almost inevitable,” and reported this week that 10 children in northern Gaza had died of starvation. Israel’s retaliatory strategy of cutting off Gaza’s two million Palestinians from most supplies of food, water, electricity, and medical care has taken a severe toll on health, even as sporadic, inadequate aid shipments and air drops have been permitted. Eventually, famine and disease are expected to cause at least as many casualties as the 30,000 deaths Hamas has reported from Israeli bombing and ground fighting.

Here, too, the unseen impacts are inevitable. Just as post-traumatic stress disorder is a lasting condition for survivors of sexual torture, the cognitive damage to children suffering malnutrition is likely to be lifelong. (Why this is not a routine part of the mainstream media’s war reporting is surprising: Neuroscientists have researched it extensively.)

At critical periods of brain development—especially in last two trimesters of pregnancy and the first two to three years of life—the inadequacy of certain nutrients can inhibit the creation of neurons and synapses, of myelin sheaths and the neurological connections that are essential to reasoning, learning, memory, and behavior in adulthood.

For at least half a century, scientists have been documenting how the developing brain suffers from insufficient iron, iodine, folate, zinc, calcium, magnesium, selenium, and various vitamins, all found in balanced diets of fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products. The finding is made in study after study, including the succinct warning in the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics that, after age two, “the effects of malnutrition on stunting may be irreversible, and some of the functional deficits may become permanent.”

Longitudinal studies have shown the lifelong effects. Seventy-seven infants in Barbados, for example, hospitalized with protein deficiency, then received nutritious food between the ages of one and twelve. Nevertheless, in their thirties, they had compromised “verbal fluency, working memory, processing speed, and visuospatial integration” compared to a healthy group from the same classrooms.

Iron deficiency during pregnancy can cause serious damage to the fetus, even if the child gets adequate iron later. Without enough meat, poultry, fish, spinach, or beans, the mother and child can suffer from anemia, which decreases the formation of the myelin sheath, whose fatty matter insulates nerve cells and helps accelerate nerve conduction. Insufficient iron affects the metabolism in the hippocampus, critical for memory, and can lead to low birth rate, which is associated with cerebral palsy and other neurological problems.

Studies following children who were anemic as infants found that years later, in school, they scored lower in math, written expression, motor functioning, spatial memory, and selective recall.

Then, too, hunger—or even the fear of hunger—creates an additional layer of anxiety on top of the terrors of war. Learning disabilities and mental health problems result. “Learning is a discretionary activity, after you’re well-fed, warm, secure,” said Dr. Deborah A. Frank, who founded a malnutrition clinic at the Boston Medical Center.

Persistent, elevated stress hormones have an impact on the size and architecture of the developing brain, a group of scientists reported in 2016, “specifically the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex.” Mental health implications abound: people experiencing food insecurity alone, even without warfare, display depression, PTSD, hopelessness, and suicidality.

All this is happening to innocent Palestinian children in Gaza as a result of Israel’s draconian strategy. And that, in turn, is the result of Hamas’s sadistic attacks on innocent Israelis, which struck the country with a novel, pervasive fear of insecurity. And that, in turn is the result of . . . You can spin back through the weary history of that tortured land and try to find the original sin that caused it all. Or you can understand that every effect there has a cause and no untanglement of cause and effect is feasible.

Then, having been foiled by history, you can look to the future and understand that what lies ahead, damaged by the present, will effectively continue the war’s harm for a generation or more—even if a total cease fire were declared today.