I know this is really long, but I want to save it here so I can go back and re-read it. It is very important.
This is a long excerpt from an article by Anne Applebaum about Trump and Trumpism that appeared in The Atlantic magazine in July 2020:
To the american reader, references to Vichy France, East Germany, fascists, and Communists may seem over-the-top, even ludicrous. But dig a little deeper, and the analogy makes sense. The point is not to compare Trump to Hitler or Stalin; the point is to compare the experiences of high-ranking members of the American Republican Party, especially those who work most closely with the White House, to the experiences of Frenchmen in 1940, or of East Germans in 1945, or of Czesław Miłosz in 1947. These are experiences of people who are forced to accept an alien ideology or a set of values that are in sharp conflict with their own.
Not even Trump’s supporters can contest this analogy, because the imposition of an alien ideology is precisely what he was calling for all along. Trump’s first statement as president, his inaugural address, was an unprecedented assault on American democracy and American values. Remember: He described America’s capital city, America’s government, America’s congressmen and senators—all democratically elected and chosen by Americans, according to America’s 227-year-old Constitution—as an “establishment” that had profited at the expense of “the people.” “Their victories have not been your victories,” he said. “Their triumphs have not been your triumphs.” Trump was stating, as clearly as he possibly could, that a new set of values was now replacing the old, though of course the nature of those new values was not yet clear.
Read: ‘American Carnage’: The Trump era begins
Almost as soon as he stopped speaking, Trump launched
his first assault on fact-based reality, a long-undervalued component of the
American political system. We are not a theocracy or a monarchy that accepts
the word of the leader or the priesthood as law. We are a democracy that
debates facts, seeks to understand problems, and then legislates solutions, all
in accordance with a set of rules. Trump’s insistence—against the evidence of
photographs, television footage, and the lived experience of thousands of
people—that the attendance at his inauguration was higher than at Barack Obama’s
first inauguration represented a sharp break with that American political
tradition. Like the authoritarian leaders of other times and places, Trump
effectively ordered not just his supporters but also apolitical members of the
government bureaucracy to adhere to a blatantly false, manipulated reality.
American politicians, like politicians everywhere, have always covered up
mistakes, held back information, and made promises they could not keep. But
until Trump was president, none of them induced the National Park Service to produce doctored
photographs or compelled the White House press secretary to lie
about the size of a crowd—or encouraged him to do so in front of a press corps
that knew he knew he was lying.
The lie was petty, even ridiculous; that was partly why it
was so dangerous. In the 1950s, when an insect known as the Colorado potato
beetle appeared in Eastern European potato fields, Soviet-backed governments in
the region triumphantly claimed that it had been dropped from the sky by
American pilots, as a deliberate form of biological sabotage. Posters featuring
vicious red-white-and-blue beetles went up all across Poland, East Germany, and
Czechoslovakia. No one really believed the charge, including the people making
it, as archives have subsequently shown. But that didn’t matter. The point of
the posters was not to convince people of a falsehood. The point was to
demonstrate the party’s power to proclaim and promulgate a falsehood. Sometimes
the point isn’t to make people believe a lie—it’s to make people fear the liar.
These kinds of lies also have a way of building on one
another. It takes time to persuade people to abandon their existing value
systems. The process usually begins slowly, with small changes. Social
scientists who have studied the erosion of values and the growth of corruption
inside companies have found, for example, that “people are more likely to
accept the unethical behavior of others if the behavior develops gradually
(along a slippery slope) rather than occurring abruptly,” according to a 2009
article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. This
happens, in part, because most people have a built-in vision of themselves as
moral and honest, and that self-image is resistant to change. Once certain
behaviors become “normal,” then people stop seeing them as wrong.
This process happens in politics, too. In 1947, the Soviet
military administrators in East Germany passed a regulation governing the
activity of publishing houses and printers. The decree did not nationalize the
printing presses; it merely demanded that their owners apply for licenses, and
that they confine their work to books and pamphlets ordered by central
planners. Imagine how a law like this—which did not speak of arrests, let alone
torture or the Gulag—affected the owner of a printing press in Dresden, a
responsible family man with two teenage children and a sickly wife. Following
its passage, he had to make a series of seemingly insignificant choices. Would
he apply for a license? Of course—he needed it to earn money for his family.
Would he agree to confine his business to material ordered by the central
planners? Yes to that too—what else was there to print?
William J. Burns: Polarized politics has infected American
diplomacy
After that, other compromises follow. Though he dislikes the
Communists—he just wants to stay out of politics—he agrees to print the
collected works of Stalin, because if he doesn’t do it, others will. When he is
asked by some disaffected friends to print a pamphlet critical of the regime,
however, he refuses. Though he wouldn’t go to jail for printing it, his
children might not be admitted to university, and his wife might not get her
medication; he has to think about their welfare. Meanwhile, all across East
Germany, other owners of other printing presses are making similar decisions.
And after a while—without anyone being shot or arrested, without anyone feeling
any particular pangs of conscience—the only books left to read are the ones
approved by the regime.
The built-in vision of themselves as American patriots, or
as competent administrators, or as loyal party members, also created a
cognitive distortion that blinded many Republicans and Trump-administration
officials to the precise nature of the president’s alternative value system.
After all, the early incidents were so trivial. They overlooked the lie about
the inauguration because it was silly. They ignored Trump’s appointment of the
wealthiest Cabinet in history, and his decision to stuff his administration
with former lobbyists, because that’s business as usual. They made excuses for
Ivanka Trump’s use of a private email account, and for Jared Kushner’s
conflicts of interest, because that’s just family stuff.
One step at a time, Trumpism fooled many of its most
enthusiastic adherents. Recall that some of the original intellectual
supporters of Trump—people like Steve Bannon, Michael Anton, and the advocates
of “national conservatism,” an ideology invented, post hoc, to rationalize the
president’s behavior—advertised their movement as a recognizable form of
populism: an anti–Wall Street, anti-foreign-wars, anti-immigration alternative
to the small-government libertarianism of the establishment Republican Party.
Their “Drain the swamp” slogan implied that Trump would clean up the rotten
world of lobbyists and campaign finance that distorts American politics, that
he would make public debate more honest and legislation more fair. Had this
actually been Trump’s ruling philosophy, it might well have posed difficulties
for the Republican Party leadership in 2016, given that most of them had quite
different values. But it would not necessarily have damaged the Constitution,
and it would not necessarily have posed fundamental moral challenges to people
in public life.
In practice, Trump has governed according to a set of
principles very different from those articulated by his original intellectual
supporters. Although some of his speeches have continued to use that populist
language, he has built a Cabinet and an administration that serve neither the
public nor his voters but rather his own psychological needs and the interests
of his own friends on Wall Street and in business and, of course, his own
family. His tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy, not the working
class. His shallow economic boom, engineered to ensure his reelection, was made
possible by a vast budget deficit, on a scale Republicans once claimed to
abhor, an enormous burden for future generations. He worked to dismantle the
existing health-care system without offering anything better, as he’d promised
to do, so that the number of uninsured people rose. All the while he fanned and
encouraged xenophobia and racism, both because he found them politically useful
and because they are part of his personal worldview.
More important, he has governed in defiance—and in
ignorance—of the American Constitution, notably declaring, well into his third
year in office, that he had “total” authority over the states. His
administration is not merely corrupt, it is also hostile to checks, balances,
and the rule of law. He has built a proto-authoritarian personality cult,
firing or sidelining officials who have contradicted him with facts and
evidence—with tragic consequences for public health and the economy. He
threatened to fire a top Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official,
Nancy Messonnier, in late February, after her too-blunt warnings about the
coronavirus; Rick Bright, a top Health and Human Services official, says he was
demoted after refusing to direct money to promote the unproven drug
hydroxychloroquine. Trump has attacked America’s military, calling his generals
“a bunch of dopes and babies,” and America’s intelligence services and
law-enforcement officers, whom he has denigrated as the “deep state” and whose
advice he has ignored. He has appointed weak and inexperienced “acting”
officials to run America’s most important security institutions. He has
systematically wrecked America’s alliances.
Adam Serwer: Trump gave police permission to be brutal
His foreign policy has never served any U.S. interests of
any kind. Although some of Trump’s Cabinet ministers and media followers have
tried to portray him as an anti-Chinese nationalist—and although foreign-policy
commentators from all points on the political spectrum have, amazingly,
accepted this fiction without questioning it—Trump’s true instinct, always, has
been to side with foreign dictators, including Chinese President Xi Jinping.
One former administration official who has seen Trump interact with Xi as well
as with Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that it was like watching a
lesser celebrity encounter a more famous one. Trump did not speak to them as
the representative of the American people; he simply wanted their aura—of
absolute power, of cruelty, of fame—to rub off on him and enhance his own
image. This, too, has had fatal consequences. In January, Trump took Xi’s word
when he said that COVID‑19 was “under control,” just as he had believed North
Korea’s Kim Jong Un when he signed a deal on nuclear weapons. Trump’s fawning
attitude toward dictators is his ideology at its purest: He meets his own
psychological needs first; he thinks about the country last. The true nature of
the ideology that Trump brought to Washington was not “America First,” but
rather “Trump First.”
Maybe it isn’t surprising that the implications of “Trump
First” were not immediately understood. After all, the Communist parties of
Eastern Europe—or, if you want a more recent example, the Chavistas in
Venezuela—all advertised themselves as advocates of equality and prosperity
even though, in practice, they created inequality and poverty. But just as the
truth about Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution slowly dawned on people, it
also became clear, eventually, that Trump did not have the interests of the
American public at heart. And as they came to realize that the president was
not a patriot, Republican politicians and senior civil servants began to
equivocate, just like people living under an alien regime.
In retrospect, this dawning realization explains why the funeral of John McCain, in September 2018, looked, and by all accounts felt, so strange. Two previous presidents, one Republican and one Democrat—representatives of the old, patriotic political class—made speeches; the sitting president’s name was never mentioned. The songs and symbols of the old order were visible too: “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”; American flags; two of McCain’s sons in their officer’s uniforms, so very different from the sons of Trump. Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser described the funeral as “a meeting of the Resistance, under vaulted ceilings and stained-glass windows.” In truth, it bore an uncanny resemblance to the 1956 funeral of László Rajk, a Hungarian Communist and secret-police boss who had been purged and murdered by his comrades in 1949. Rajk’s wife had become an outspoken critic of the regime, and the funeral turned into a de facto political rally, helping to set off Hungary’s anti-Communist revolution a couple of weeks later.
Nothing quite so dramatic happened after McCain’s funeral.
But it did clarify the situation. A year and a half into the Trump
administration, it marked a turning point, the moment at which many Americans
in public life began to adopt the strategies, tactics, and self-justifications
that the inhabitants of occupied countries have used in the past—doing so even
though the personal stakes were, relatively speaking, so low. Poles like Miłosz
wound up in exile in the 1950s; dissidents in East Germany lost the right to
work and study. In harsher regimes like that of Stalin’s Russia, public protest
could lead to many years in a concentration camp; disobedient Wehrmacht
officers were executed by slow strangulation.
Anne Applebaum: Creeping authoritarianism has finally
prevailed
By contrast, a Republican senator who dares to question
whether Trump is acting in the interests of the country is in danger of—what,
exactly? Losing his seat and winding up with a seven-figure lobbying job or a
fellowship at the Harvard Kennedy School? He might meet the terrible fate of
Jeff Flake, the former Arizona senator, who has been hired as a contributor by
CBS News. He might suffer like Romney, who was tragically not invited to the Conservative Political
Action Conference, which this year turned out to be a reservoir of COVID‑19.
Nevertheless, 20 months into the Trump administration,
senators and other serious-minded Republicans in public life who should have
known better began to tell themselves stories that sound very much like those
in Miłosz’s The Captive Mind. Some of these stories overlap
with one another; some of them are just thin cloaks to cover self-interest. But
all of them are familiar justifications of collaboration, recognizable from the
past. Here are the most popular.
We can use this moment to achieve great things. In the spring of 2019, a Trump-supporting friend put
me in touch with an administration official I will call “Mark,” whom I
eventually met for a drink. I won’t give details, because we spoke informally,
but in any case Mark did not leak information or criticize the White House. On
the contrary, he described himself as a patriot and a true believer. He
supported the language of “America First,” and was confident that it could be
made real.
Several months later, I met Mark a second time. The
impeachment hearings had begun, and the story of the firing of the American
ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was then in the news. The true nature
of the administration’s ideology—Trump First, not America First—was becoming
more obvious. The president’s abuse of military aid to Ukraine and his attacks
on civil servants suggested not a patriotic White House, but a president
focused on his own interests. Mark did not apologize for the president, though.
Instead, he changed the subject: It was all worth it, he told me, because of
the Uighurs.
George Packer: Shouting into the institutional void
I thought I had misheard. The Uighurs? Why
the Uighurs? I was unaware of anything that the administration had done to aid
the oppressed Muslim minority in Xinjiang, China. Mark assured me that letters
had been written, statements had been made, the president himself had been
persuaded to say something at the United Nations. I doubted very much that the
Uighurs had benefited from these empty words: China hadn’t altered its
behavior, and the concentration camps built for the Uighurs were still
standing. Nevertheless, Mark’s conscience was clear. Yes, Trump was destroying
America’s reputation in the world, and yes, Trump was ruining America’s
alliances, but Mark was so important to the cause of the Uighurs that people
like him could, in good conscience, keep working for the administration.
Mark made me think of the story of Wanda Telakowska, a Polish cultural activist who
in 1945 felt much the same as he did. Telakowska had collected and promoted
folk art before the war; after the war she made the momentous decision to join
the Polish Ministry of Culture. The Communist leadership was arresting and
murdering its opponents; the nature of the regime was becoming clear.
Telakowska nevertheless thought she could use her position inside the Communist
establishment to help Polish artists and designers, to promote their work and
get Polish companies to mass-produce their designs. But Polish factories, newly
nationalized, were not interested in the designs she commissioned. Communist
politicians, skeptical of her loyalty, made Telakowska write articles filled
with Marxist gibberish. Eventually she resigned, having achieved nothing she
set out to do. A later generation of artists condemned her as a Stalinist and
forgot about her.
We can protect the country from the president. That, of course, was the argument used by “Anonymous,” the
author of an unsigned New York Times op-ed published
in September 2018. For those who have forgotten—a lot has happened since
then—that article described the president’s “erratic behavior,” his inability
to concentrate, his ignorance, and above all his lack of “affinity for ideals
long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” The
“root of the problem,” Anonymous concluded, was “the president’s amorality.” In
essence, the article described the true nature of the alternative value system
brought into the White House by Trump, at a moment when not everybody in
Washington understood it. But even as they came to understand that the Trump
presidency was guided by the president’s narcissism, Anonymous did not quit,
protest, make noise, or campaign against the president and his party.
Read: The saddest part of the anonymous ‘New York Times’
op-ed
Instead, Anonymous concluded that remaining inside the
system, where they could cleverly distract and restrain the president, was the
right course for public servants like them. Anonymous was not alone. Gary Cohn,
at the time the White House economic adviser, told Bob Woodward that he’d
removed papers from the president’s desk to prevent him from pulling out of a
trade agreement with South Korea. James Mattis, Trump’s original secretary of
defense, stayed in office because he thought he
could educate the president about the value of America’s alliances, or at least
protect some of them from destruction.
This kind of behavior has echoes in other countries and
other times. A few months ago, in Venezuela, I spoke with Víctor Álvarez, a
minister in one of Hugo Chávez’s governments and a high-ranking official before
that. Álvarez explained to me the arguments he had made in favor of protecting
some private industry, and his opposition to mass nationalization. Álvarez was
in government from the late 1990s through 2006, a time when Chávez was stepping
up the use of police against peaceful demonstrators and undermining democratic
institutions. Still, Álvarez remained, hoping to curb Chávez’s worst economic
instincts. Ultimately, he did quit, after concluding that Chávez had created a
loyalty cult around himself—Álvarez called it a “subclimate” of obedience—and
was no longer listening to anyone who disagreed.
Anne Applebaum: Venezuela is the eerie endgame of modern
politics
In authoritarian regimes, many insiders eventually conclude
that their presence simply does not matter. Cohn, after publicly agonizing when
the president said there had been “fine people on both sides” at the deadly
white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, finally quit when the
president made the ruinous decision to put tariffs on steel and aluminum, a
decision that harmed American businesses. Mattis reached his breaking point
when the president abandoned the Kurds, America’s longtime allies in the war
against the Islamic State.
But although both resigned, neither Cohn nor Mattis has
spoken out in any notable way. (On June 3, after this article went to
press, Mattis denounced Trump in an article on TheAtlantic.com.)
Their presence inside the White House helped build Trump’s credibility among
traditional Republican voters; their silence now continues to serve the
president’s purposes. As for Anonymous, we don’t know whether he or she remains
inside the administration. For the record, I note that Álvarez lives in
Venezuela, an actual police state, and yet is willing to speak out against the
system he helped create. Cohn, Mattis, and Anonymous, all living freely in the
United States of America, have not been nearly so brave.
I, personally, will benefit. These, of course, are words that few people ever say out
loud. Perhaps some do quietly acknowledge to themselves that they have not
resigned or protested because it would cost them money or status. But no one
wants a reputation as a careerist or a turncoat. After the fall of the Berlin
Wall, even Markus Wolf sought to portray himself as an idealist. He had truly
believed in Marxist-Leninist ideals, this infamously cynical man told an
interviewer in 1996, and “I still believe in them.”
Many people in and around the Trump administration are
seeking personal benefits. Many of them are doing so with a degree of openness
that is startling and unusual in contemporary American politics, at least at
this level. As an ideology, “Trump First” suits these people, because it gives
them license to put themselves first. To pick a random example: Sonny Perdue,
the secretary of agriculture, is a former Georgia governor and a businessman
who, like Trump, famously refused to put his agricultural companies into
a blind trust when he entered the governor’s
office. Perdue has never even pretended to separate his political and personal
interests. Since joining the Cabinet he has, with almost no oversight,
distributed billions of dollars of “compensation” to farms damaged by Trump’s
trade policies. He has stuffed his department with former lobbyists who are now
in charge of regulating their own industries: Deputy Secretary Stephen Censky
was for 21 years the CEO of the American Soybean Association; Brooke Appleton
was a lobbyist for the National Corn Growers Association before becoming
Censky’s chief of staff, and has since returned to that group; Kailee Tkacz, a
member of a nutritional advisory panel, is a former lobbyist for the Snack Food
Association. The list goes on and on, as would lists of similarly compromised
people in the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
elsewhere.
David W. Blight: One week to save democracy
Perdue’s department also employs an extraordinary range of
people with no experience in agriculture whatsoever. These modern apparatchiks,
hired for their loyalty rather than their competence, include a long-haul truck
driver, a country-club cabana attendant, the owner of a scented-candle company,
and an intern at the Republican National Committee. The long-haul truck driver
was paid $80,000 a year to expand markets for American agriculture abroad. Why
was he qualified? He had a background in “hauling and shipping agricultural
commodities.”
A friend told me that each time he
sees Lindsey Graham, “he brags about having just met with Trump” while
exhibiting “high school” levels of excitement, as if “a popular quarterback has
just bestowed some attention on a nerdy debate-club leader.”
I must remain close to power. Another sort of benefit, harder to measure, has kept
many people who object to Trump’s policies or behavior from speaking out: the
intoxicating experience of power, and the belief that proximity to a powerful
person bestows higher status. This, too, is nothing new. In a 1968 article
for The Atlantic, James Thomson, an American East Asia
specialist, brilliantly explained how power functioned
inside the U.S. bureaucracy in the Vietnam era. When the war in Vietnam was
going badly, many people did not resign or speak out in public, because
preserving their “effectiveness”—“a mysterious combination of training, style,
and connections,” as Thomson defined it—was an all-consuming concern. He called
this “the effectiveness trap”:
The inclination to remain silent or to acquiesce in the
presence of the great men—to live to fight another day, to give on this issue
so that you can be “effective” on later issues—is overwhelming. Nor is it the
tendency of youth alone; some of our most senior officials, men of wealth and
fame, whose place in history is secure, have remained silent lest their
connection with power be terminated.
In any organization, private or public, the boss will of
course sometimes make decisions that his underlings dislike. But when basic
principles are constantly violated, and people constantly defer resignation—“I
can always fall on my sword next time”—then misguided policies go fatally
unchallenged.
In other countries, the effectiveness trap has other names.
In his recent book on Putinism, Between Two Fires, Joshua Yaffa
describes the Russian version of this syndrome. The Russian language, he notes,
has a word—prisposoblenets—that means “a person skilled in the act of
compromise and adaptation, who intuitively understands what is expected of him
and adjusts his beliefs and conduct accordingly.” In Putin’s Russia, anyone who
wants to stay in the game—to remain close to power, to retain influence, to
inspire respect—knows the necessity of making constant small changes to one’s
language and behavior, of being careful about what one says and to whom one says
it, of understanding what criticism is acceptable and what constitutes a
violation of the unwritten rules. Those who violate these rules will not, for
the most part, suffer prison—Putin’s Russia is not Stalin’s Russia—but they
will experience a painful ejection from the inner circle.
For those who have never experienced it, the mystical pull
of that connection to power, that feeling of being an insider, is difficult to
explain. Nevertheless, it is real, and strong enough to affect even the
highest-ranking, best-known, most influential people in America. John Bolton,
Trump’s former national security adviser, named his still-unpublished
book The Room Where It Happened, because, of course, that’s where
he has always wanted to be. A friend who regularly runs into Lindsey Graham in
Washington told me that each time they meet, “he brags about having just met
with Trump” while exhibiting “high school” levels of excitement, as if “a
popular quarterback has just bestowed some attention on a nerdy debate-club
leader—the powerful big kid likes me! ” That kind of intense pleasure is
hard to relinquish and even harder to live without.
LOL nothing matters. Cynicism,
nihilism, relativism, amorality, irony, sarcasm, boredom, amusement—these are
all reasons to collaborate, and always have been. Marko Martin, a novelist and
travel writer who grew up in East Germany, told me that in the 1980s some of
the East German bohemia, influenced by then-fashionable French intellectuals,
argued that there was no such thing as morality or immorality, no such thing as
good or evil, no such thing as right or wrong—“so you might as well
collaborate.”
This instinct has an American variation. Politicians here
who have spent their lives following rules and watching their words,
calibrating their language, giving pious speeches about morality and
governance, may feel a sneaking admiration for someone like Trump, who breaks
all the rules and gets away with it. He lies; he cheats; he extorts; he refuses
to show compassion, sympathy, or empathy; he does not pretend to believe in
anything or to abide by any moral code. He simulates patriotism, with flags and
gestures, but he does not behave like a patriot; his campaign scrambled to get
help from Russia in 2016 (“If it’s what you say, I love it,” replied Donald
Trump Jr., when offered Russian “dirt” on Hillary Clinton), and Trump himself
called on Russia to hack his opponent. And for some of those at the top of his
administration, and of his party, these character traits might have a deep,
unacknowledged appeal: If there is no such thing as moral and immoral, then
everyone is implicitly released from the need to obey any rules. If the
president doesn’t respect the Constitution, then why should I? If the president
can cheat in elections, then why can’t I? If the president can sleep with porn
stars, then why shouldn’t I?
This, of course, was the insight of the “alt-right,” which
understood the dark allure of amorality, open racism, anti-Semitism, and
misogyny long before many others in the Republican Party. Mikhail Bakhtin, the
Russian philosopher and literary critic, recognized the lure of the forbidden a
century ago, writing about the deep appeal of the carnival, a space where
everything banned is suddenly allowed, where eccentricity is permitted, where
profanity defeats piety. The Trump administration is like that: Nothing means
anything, rules don’t matter, and the president is the carnival king.
My side might be flawed, but the political opposition is
much worse. When Marshal Philippe Pétain,
the leader of collaborationist France, took over the Vichy government, he did so
in the name of the restoration of a France that he believed had been lost.
Pétain had been a fierce critic of the French Republic, and once he was in
control, he replaced its famous creed—Liberté, égalité, fraternité, or
“Liberty, equality, fraternity”—with a different slogan: Travail,
famille, patrie, or “Work, family, fatherland.” Instead of the “false idea
of the natural equality of man,” he proposed bringing back “social
hierarchy”—order, tradition, and religion. Instead of accepting modernity,
Pétain sought to turn back the clock.
By Pétain’s reckoning, collaboration with the Germans was
not merely an embarrassing necessity. It was crucial, because it gave patriots
the ability to fight the real enemy: the French
parliamentarians, socialists, anarchists, Jews, and other assorted leftists and
democrats who, he believed, were undermining the nation, robbing it of its
vitality, destroying its essence. “Rather Hitler than Blum,” the saying
went—Blum having been France’s socialist (and Jewish) prime minister in the
late 1930s. One Vichy minister, Pierre Laval, famously declared that he hoped
Germany would conquer all of Europe. Otherwise, he asserted, “Bolshevism would
tomorrow establish itself everywhere.”
From the October 2001 issue: France’s downfall
To Americans, this kind of justification should sound very
familiar; we have been hearing versions of it since 2016. The existential
nature of the threat from “the left” has been spelled out many times. “Our
liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human
nature,” wrote Michael Anton, in “The Flight 93
Election.” The Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham has warned that “massive demographic changes”
threaten us too: “In some parts of the country it does seem like the America
that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore.” This is the Vichy logic: The
nation is dead or dying—so anything you can do to restore it is justified.
Whatever criticisms might be made of Trump, whatever harm he has done to
democracy and the rule of law, whatever corrupt deals he might make while in
the White House—all of these shrink in comparison to the horrific alternative:
the liberalism, socialism, moral decadence, demographic change, and cultural
degradation that would have been the inevitable result of Hillary Clinton’s
presidency.
The Republican senators who are willing to express their
disgust with Trump off the record but voted in February for him to remain in
office all indulge a variation of this sentiment. (Trump enables them to get
the judges they want, and those judges will help create the America they want.)
So do the evangelical pastors who ought to be disgusted by Trump’s personal
behavior but argue, instead, that the current situation has scriptural precedents.
Like King David in the Bible, the president is a sinner, a flawed vessel, but
he nevertheless offers a path to salvation for a fallen nation.
The three most important members of Trump’s Cabinet—Vice
President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Attorney General
William Barr—are all profoundly shaped by Vichyite apocalyptic thinking. All
three are clever enough to understand what Trumpism really means, that it has
nothing to do with God or faith, that it is self-serving, greedy, and
unpatriotic. Nevertheless, a former member of the administration (one of the
few who did decide to resign) told me that both Pence and Pompeo “have
convinced themselves that they are in a biblical moment.” All of the things
they care about—outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage, and (though this is
never said out loud) maintaining a white majority in America—are under threat.
Time is growing short. They believe that “we are approaching the Rapture, and
this is a moment of deep religious significance.” Barr, in a speech at Notre Dame, has also described
his belief that “militant secularists” are destroying America, that “irreligion
and secular values are being forced on people of faith.” Whatever evil Trump
does, whatever he damages or destroys, at least he enables Barr, Pence, and
Pompeo to save America from a far worse fate. If you are convinced we are
living in the End Times, then anything the president does can be forgiven.
I am afraid to speak out. Fear,
of course, is the most important reason any inhabitant of an authoritarian or
totalitarian society does not protest or resign, even when the leader commits
crimes, violates his official ideology, or forces people to do things that they
know to be wrong. In extreme dictatorships like Nazi Germany and Stalin’s
Russia, people fear for their lives. In softer dictatorships, like East Germany
after 1950 and Putin’s Russia today, people fear losing their jobs or their
apartments. Fear works as a motivation even when violence is a memory rather
than a reality. When I was a student in Leningrad in the 1980s, some people
still stepped back in horror when I asked for directions on the street, in my
accented Russian: No one was going to be arrested for speaking to a foreigner
in 1984, but 30 years earlier they might have been, and the cultural memory
remained.
Republican leaders don’t seem to
know that similar waves of fear have helped transform other democracies into
dictatorships.
In the United States of America, it is hard to imagine how
fear could be a motivation for anybody. There are no mass murders of the
regime’s political enemies, and there never have been. Political opposition is
legal; free press and free speech are guaranteed in the Constitution. And yet
even in one of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies, fear is a
motive. The same former administration official who observed the importance of
apocalyptic Christianity in Trump’s Washington also told me, with grim disgust,
that “they are all scared.”
They are scared not of prison, the official said, but of
being attacked by Trump on Twitter. They are scared he will make up a nickname
for them. They are scared that they will be mocked, or embarrassed, like Mitt
Romney has been. They are scared of losing their social circles, of being
disinvited to parties. They are scared that their friends and supporters, and
especially their donors, will desert them. John Bolton has his own super PAC
and a lot of plans for how he wants to use it; no wonder he resisted testifying
against Trump. Former Speaker Paul Ryan is among the dozens of House
Republicans who have left Congress since the beginning of this administration,
in one of the most striking personnel turnovers in congressional history. They
left because they hated what Trump was doing to their party—and the country.
Yet even after they left, they did not speak out.
They are scared, and yet they don’t seem to know that this
fear has precedents, or that it could have consequences. They don’t know that
similar waves of fear have helped transform other democracies into
dictatorships. They don’t seem to realize that the American Senate really could
become the Russian Duma, or the Hungarian Parliament, a group of exalted men
and women who sit in an elegant building, with no influence and no power.
Indeed, we are already much closer to that reality than many could ever have
imagined.
In february, many members of the Republican Party leadership,
Republican senators, and people inside the administration used various versions
of these rationales to justify their opposition to impeachment. All of them had
seen the evidence that Trump had stepped over the line in his dealings with the
president of Ukraine. All of them knew that he had tried to use American
foreign-policy tools, including military funding, to force a foreign leader
into investigating a domestic political opponent. Yet Republican senators, led
by Mitch McConnell, never took the charges seriously. They mocked the
Democratic House leaders who had presented the charges. They decided against
hearing evidence. With the single exception of Romney, they voted in favor of
ending the investigation. They did not use the opportunity to rid the country
of a president whose operative value system—built around corruption, nascent
authoritarianism, self-regard, and his family’s business interests—runs counter
to everything that most of them claim to believe in.
Just a month later, in March, the consequences of that
decision became suddenly clear. After the U.S. and the world were plunged into
crisis by a coronavirus that had no cure, the damage done by the president’s
self-focused, self-dealing narcissism—his one true “ideology”—was finally
visible. He led a federal response to the virus that was historically chaotic.
The disappearance of the federal government was not a carefully planned
transfer of power to the states, as some tried to claim, or a thoughtful
decision to use the talents of private companies. This was the inevitable
result of a three-year assault on professionalism, loyalty, competence, and
patriotism. Tens of thousands of people have died, and the economy has been
ruined.
Anne Applebaum: The rest of the world is laughing at Trump
This utter disaster was avoidable. If the Senate had removed
the president by impeachment a month earlier; if the Cabinet had invoked the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment as soon as Trump’s unfitness became clear; if the
anonymous and off-the-record officials who knew of Trump’s incompetence had
jointly warned the public; if they had not, instead, been so concerned about
maintaining their proximity to power; if senators had not been scared of their
donors; if Pence, Pompeo, and Barr had not believed that God had chosen them to
play special roles in this “biblical moment”—if any of these things had gone
differently, then thousands of deaths and a historic economic collapse might
have been avoided.
The price of collaboration in America has already turned out
to be extraordinarily high. And yet, the movement down the slippery slope
continues, just as it did in so many occupied countries in the past. First
Trump’s enablers accepted lies about the inauguration; now they accept terrible
tragedy and the loss of American leadership in the world. Worse could follow.
Come November, will they tolerate—even abet—an assault on the electoral system:
open efforts to prevent postal voting, to shut polling stations, to scare
people away from voting? Will they countenance violence, as the president’s
social-media fans incite demonstrators to launch physical attacks on state and
city officials?
Each violation of our Constitution and our civic peace gets
absorbed, rationalized, and accepted by people who once upon a time knew
better. If, following what is almost certain to be one of the ugliest elections
in American history, Trump wins a second term, these people may well accept
even worse. Unless, of course, they decide not to.
When I visited Marianne Birthler, she didn’t think it was
interesting to talk about collaboration in East Germany, because everybody
collaborated in East Germany. So I asked her about dissidence instead: When all
of your friends, all of your teachers, and all of your employers are firmly
behind the system, how do you find the courage to oppose it? In her answer,
Birthler resisted the use of the word courage; just as people can
adapt to corruption or immorality, she told me, they can slowly learn to object
as well. The choice to become a dissident can easily be the result of “a number
of small decisions that you take”—to absent yourself from the May Day parade,
for example, or not to sing the words of the party hymn. And then, one day, you
find yourself irrevocably on the other side. Often, this process involves role
models. You see people whom you admire, and you want to be like them. It can
even be “selfish.” “You want to do something for yourself,” Birthler said, “to
respect yourself.”
For some people, the struggle is made easier by their
upbringing. Marko Martin’s parents hated the East German regime, and so did he.
His father was a conscientious objector, and so was he. As far back as the
Weimar Republic, his great-grandparents had been part of the
“anarcho-syndicalist” anti-Communist left; he had access to their books. In the
1980s, he refused to join the Free German Youth, the Communist youth
organization, and as a result he could not go to university. He instead
embarked on a vocational course, to train to be an electrician (after refusing
to become a butcher). In his electrician-training classes, one of the other
students pulled him aside and warned him, subtly, that the Stasi was collecting
information on him: “It’s not necessary that you tell me all the things you
have in mind.” He was eventually allowed to emigrate, in May 1989, just a few
months before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In America we also have our
Marianne Birthlers, our Marko Martins: people whose families taught them
respect for the Constitution, who have faith in the rule of law, who believe in
the importance of disinterested public service, who have values and role models
from outside the world of the Trump administration. Over the past year, many
such people have found the courage to stand up for what they believe. A few
have been thrust into the limelight. Fiona Hill—an immigrant success story and
a true believer in the American Constitution—was not afraid to testify at the
House’s impeachment hearings, nor was she afraid to speak out against
Republicans who were promulgating a false story of Ukrainian interference in
the 2016 election. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and
propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” she said in her
congressional testimony. “The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign
power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016.”
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman—another immigrant
success story and another true believer in the American Constitution—also found
the courage, first to report on the president’s improper telephone call with
his Ukrainian counterpart, which Vindman had heard as a member of the National
Security Council, and then to speak publicly about it. In his testimony, he
made explicit reference to the values of the American political system, so
different from those in the place where he was born. “In Russia,” he
said, “offering public testimony involving the president would
surely cost me my life.” But as “an American citizen and public servant … I can
live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.” A few days after the Senate
impeachment vote, Vindman was physically escorted out of the White House by
representatives of a vengeful president who did not appreciate Vindman’s hymn
to American patriotism—although retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, the
president’s former chief of staff, apparently did. Vindman’s behavior, Kelly
said in a speech a few days later, was “exactly what we teach them to do from
cradle to grave. He went and told his boss what he just heard.”
Read: John Kelly finally lets loose on Trump
But both Hill and Vindman had some important advantages.
Neither had to answer to voters, or to donors. Neither had prominent status in
the Republican Party. What would it take, by contrast, for Pence or Pompeo to
conclude that the president bears responsibility for a catastrophic health and
economic crisis? What would it take for Republican senators to admit to
themselves that Trump’s loyalty cult is destroying the country they claim to
love? What would it take for their aides and subordinates to come to the same
conclusion, to resign, and to campaign against the president? What would it
take, in other words, for someone like Lindsey Graham to behave like Wolfgang
Leonhard?
If, as Stanley Hoffmann wrote, the honest historian would
have to speak of “collaborationisms,” because the phenomenon comes in so many
variations, the same is true of dissidence, which should probably be described
as “dissidences.” People can suddenly change their minds because of spontaneous
intellectual revelations like the one Wolfgang Leonhard had when walking into
his fancy nomenklatura dining room, with its white tablecloths
and three-course meals. They can also be persuaded by outside events: rapid
political changes, for example. Awareness that the regime had lost its
legitimacy is part of what made Harald Jaeger, an obscure and until that moment
completely loyal East German border guard, decide on the night of November 9,
1989, to lift the gates and let his fellow citizens walk through the Berlin
Wall—a decision that led, over the next days and months, to the end of East
Germany itself. Jaeger’s decision was not planned; it was a spontaneous
response to the fearlessness of the crowd. “Their will was so great,” he said
years later, of those demanding to cross into West Berlin, “there was no other
alternative than to open the border.”
But these things are all intertwined, and not easy to
disentangle. The personal, the political, the intellectual, and the historical
combine differently within every human brain, and the outcomes can be
unpredictable. Leonhard’s “sudden” revelation may have been building for years,
perhaps since his mother’s arrest. Jaeger was moved by the grandeur of the
historical moment on that night in November, but he also had more petty
concerns: He was annoyed at his boss, who had not given him clear instructions
about what to do.
Could some similar combination of the petty and the
political ever convince Lindsey Graham that he has helped lead his country down
a blind alley? Perhaps a personal experience could move him, a prod from
someone who represents his former value system—an old Air Force buddy, say,
whose life has been damaged by Trump’s reckless behavior, or a friend from his
hometown. Perhaps it requires a mass political event: When the voters begin to
turn, maybe Graham will turn with them, arguing, as Jaeger did, that “their
will was so great … there was no other alternative.” At some point, after all,
the calculus of conformism will begin to shift. It will become awkward and
uncomfortable to continue supporting “Trump First,” especially as Americans
suffer from the worst recession in living memory and die from the coronavirus
in numbers higher than in much of the rest of the world.
Anne Applebaum: A study in leadership
Or perhaps the only antidote is time. In due course,
historians will write the story of our era and draw lessons from it, just as we
write the history of the 1930s, or of the 1940s. The Miłoszes and the Hoffmanns
of the future will make their judgments with the clarity of hindsight. They
will see, more clearly than we can, the path that led the U.S. into a historic
loss of international influence, into economic catastrophe, into political
chaos of a kind we haven’t experienced since the years leading up to the Civil
War. Then maybe Graham—along with Pence, Pompeo, McConnell, and a whole host of
lesser figures—will understand what he has enabled.
In the meantime, I leave anyone who has the bad luck to be
in public life at this moment with a final thought from Władysław Bartoszewski, who was a member of
the wartime Polish underground, a prisoner of both the Nazis and the
Stalinists, and then, finally, the foreign minister in two Polish democratic
governments. Late in his life—he lived to be 93—he summed up the philosophy
that had guided him through all of these tumultuous political changes. It was
not idealism that drove him, or big ideas, he said. It was this: Warto
być przyzwoitym—“Just try to be decent.” Whether you were decent—that’s
what will be remembered.
This article appears in the July/August 2020 print edition
with the headline “The Collaborators.”
ANNE APPLEBAUM is
a staff writer at The Atlantic, a senior fellow of the Agora Institute at Johns
Hopkins University, and the author of Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of
Authoritarianism.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment