By David K. Shipler
The
most stirring statement of any witness in the House impeachment hearings last
fall came from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council, who
opened his testimony with thanks and reassurance to his father, who had brought
his family to the United States for “refuge from authoritarian oppression” in
the Soviet Union.
“My
simple act of appearing here today,” Vindman declared, “would not be tolerated
in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing concern
through the chain of command in an official and private channel would have
severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony
involving the president would surely cost me my life.
“I am
grateful for my father’s bold act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of
being an American citizen and public servant where I can live free of fear for
my and my family’s safety. Dad, [that] I’m sitting here today in the US Capitol
talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision
40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of
America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry. I will be fine
for telling the truth.”
Did Colonel
Vindman misread his adopted country?
After honoring a subpoena and
testifying under oath on President Trump’s “inappropriate” phone call with
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Vindman got death threats so alarming
that the Army and local police had to provide security. The Army considered
moving his family to safety on a military base. And this week, after acquittal
in his impeachment trial, an unleashed Trump had Vindman escorted out of the
White House and then threatened him (by tweet) with unspecified military
punishment. This was part of a widening pattern of retaliation by the Trump
apparatus against impeachment witnesses and other independent thinkers in
government.
The United States is not the Soviet
Union, of course, and it’s a good bet that Vindman would never think it was. Furthermore,
invidious analogies between Trump and various forms of
authoritarianism—fascism, Nazism, third-world dictatorships—are so common that
they have lost their bite. So it’s important to recognize that while the
American constitutional system is under immense strain by Republicans impatient
with its messy checks on their power, the restraints have not yet broken.
Nevertheless, to one who lived in
Moscow from 1975 to 1979, there is a queasy taste of familiarity in the impulses
of Trump and his Republican followers. There is a certain kind of political
actor, whether Soviet or American, who cannot stand dissent and debate, who
derides facts and truth, who sees all behavior through a lens of personal or
ideological loyalty, and whose values extend no farther than immediate victory
and the expansion of authority. In this mindset, truth-tellers are “enemies of
the people,” to quote Stalin and Trump. Policy differences constitute warfare
in which argument and rebuttal are not enough: Opponents must be destroyed
through smears, propaganda, and retribution.
These actors have no moral brakes.
They wield whatever weapons the system permits.
In the post-Stalinist Soviet system
that I observed, the punishments for suspicions of political irreverence ranged
from mild to severe: a formal denunciation by peers, a denial of promotion at
work, a rejection of a coveted trip abroad, a job dismissal, a cutoff of your
phone, even imprisonment or Siberian exile if your dissent was public and
persistent. Certain positions—journalist, history professor, factory manager, hospital
director, and the like—required membership in the Communist Party, which was
highly selective and relied on proof of political reliability.
In the United States, Republicans
under Trump—and earlier under George W. Bush—have imposed their own kind of
political orthodoxy, conducting litmus tests on applicants for government jobs in
the Justice Department and other agencies that are supposed to be
non-political. As I wrote in the last chapter of The Rights of the People, Bush administration “applicants were
asked ideologically charged questions: ‘What is it about George W. Bush that
makes you want to serve him?’ ‘Tell us about your political philosophy,’
whether you’re a ‘social conservative, fiscal conservative, [or] law and order
Republican.’” Some in federal law enforcement were grilled on their views of
abortion, their voting histories, and their favorite Supreme Court justices,
all matters irrelevant to their jobs. Membership in the conservative Federalist
Society was nearly as critical to getting hired in the Justice Department in
Washington as membership in the Communist Party had been in Moscow.
So the impulse for ideological
purity did not begin with the Trump administration. Nor did the disdain for the
rule of law. Soviet authorities constructed facades of legal-looking procedures
for trying dissidents in a highly politicized judicial system. American
authorities after the 9/11 attacks constructed charades of legal rationalizations
to permit torture, warrantless surveillance, and imprisonment without trial.
Republicans, especially under Trump, are on a mission to politicize the federal
courts, and Trump derides their independence. The Soviet and Republican purposes
are the same: to facilitate the machinery of the state.
One difference between Moscow and Washington
is that while Soviet leaders were canny and closed, Trump is clumsy and
explicit. He has made no secret of his desire to have adversaries arrested—the
whistleblower on Ukraine for “treason,” Vindman for “insubordination,” Hillary Clinton
for just about anything. These crude slanders have not yet been translated into
legal assaults, but what if he wins a second term? He has gradually purged the
White House and the Justice Department of officials devoted to the constitutional
principles of law and the separation of powers. As he accumulates a collection
of adoring sycophants, he distills his inner circle into a concentrated toxin.
Trump has been most obvious among
presidents in denouncing judges, obstructing investigations (see the Mueller
report), and interfering with prosecutors, as this week when he got the Justice
Department to rescind its tough sentencing recommendation for his pal Roger
Stone. Soviet authorities often determined sentencing behind closed doors in
what Russians sardonically called “telephone justice,” a phone call between a
judge and a Communist Party official. By contrast, the American judge in
Stone’s case, Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, can afford to be
independent; she needn’t curry favor with anyone, being too old (65) to be
considered for elevation to a higher court.
As the law is manipulated, so is
history. Soviet archives were closed and secret, and the portrayal of history
was distorted to hide wrongdoing and conform with current ideology. The Trump
administration is violating federal law by destroying documents required to be
filed in the National Archives. So American archives will now be incomplete, damaging
historians’ work. Still, unlike the centralized Soviet Union, America’s
pluralism retains diverse centers of authority, so that no single hand can
dictate what citizens know of their country’s past.
In some respects, the lessons of
history seem to be running in reverse, at least to this old Moscow hand. History
is usually touted as informing the present, explaining current events in the
context of what has gone before. Now, the present is informing the past, as the
Trump era illuminates authoritarian impulses in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
It used to be conventional wisdom
to see longstanding Russian culture—from the czars through the Communists—at the
root of Russians’ affinity for a strongman like Stalin (and now Putin) and for
the compliance of Soviet citizens in the conspiracy of myths and lies and
injustices. But American culture has no such tradition. Looking at the present
Republican adulation of Trump, whose cult of personality would be nearly as
dangerous as Stalin’s if the United States were not a constitutional democracy,
we might be witnessing traits more universal in humanity than previously
acknowledged.
During the liberalizing era of
Mikhail Gorbachev, I heard this joke in the Kremlin:
First Member of Parliament: “What
we need is a democracy like Sweden’s.”
Second Member of Parliament: “It
will never work here.”
First Member: “Why not?’
Second Member: “We don’t have
enough Swedes.”
I used to think that you could
substitute “Americans” for “Swedes.” Now I’m not so sure.
Dave nailed this one! What a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteIt's just so scary! And how ignorant a large part of our populace is - They don't know how much they don't know! So they happily support this Authoritarian Buffoon. Depressing... Thanks for laying it out so clearly, David Shipler.
ReplyDeleteDave
ReplyDeleteWhen I read your sentence "...no single hand can dictate
what citizens know of their country's past." I couldnt help but
think "yet"!
I wonder if Trump will willingly leave if he is not re-elected?
I also think that if he is re-elected he may try to have the 22nd
amendment repealed!
Dear Mr. Shipler,
ReplyDeleteEvery thinking American should read this post. You are the most important social critic of our time, and I have read all but two of your books. (they're on my list). The contents of your latest post make me wonder if the satire about s-hole countries you ran awhile ago is so very farfetched after all...
Dear Ms. Hein, your compliment is too generous, but I'm very pleased, of course. And yes, I agree that the worries about Soviet-style impulses here should be taken very seriously by everyone. Nice line about the earlier satire. As we know, the best satire is also very serious!
Delete