Revisiting Martin Niemollar


Martin Niemollar, a Protestant Pastor who spent years in a Nazi concentration camp, wrote a frequently cited warning after World War II about the dangers of staying silent in the face of evil:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

For those who assert that Donald Trump doesn’t really mean what he says or that he will act differently if he is elected president, my response is: Can we really take that chance? Presidential campaigns are almost always hard-fought contests that stretch the boundaries of truth, engage in hyperbole, attempt to divide the electorate between those for and those against a candidate and appeal to emotions.  But by any historical comparison, Trump’s approach in this election is far outside the boundaries of normal for any of those categories.

Trump has been called a lot of things during this election, including a narcissist, a racist and a neo-fascist. Of the first charge, there’s no question; he’s a textbook case. Whether or not he is a racist–and there’s lots of evidence to support the allegation–he certainly appeals to racism among his followers. It’s neither subtle nor hidden and the reactions are on full display at many of his rallies.

Fortunately for us, Trump has not yet had the opportunity to prove that he is a fascist. He has certainly expressed his admiration for figures like Mussolini as well as dictators like Vladimir Putin.  His campaign speeches show no understanding of or regard for the safeguards of our constitutional system.  His assertions about what he would do once in office sound very much like those dictators  he so admires.

How might Martin Niemollar update his warning in light of Trump’s demonizing of different groups?

First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Muslim

Then they came for the Mexicans, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Mexican

Then they came for the Syrian refugees, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Syrian refugee

Then they came for Hillary Clinton and her supporters with “2nd Amendment” remedies, and I hoped that we hadn’t waited too long

Of course, lots of people are speaking out about the dangers posed by Donald Trump and his campaign for the presidency.  As inflammatory, bigoted and divisive as his rhetoric continues to be, the most disturbing part of his campaign is his encouraging and enabling of the worst in human nature.    Some of his supporters appear only too willing to follow without question his lead.

Racist language has become more overt.  Anyone who does not support him is an enemy, not merely an opponent.  His pronouncement that a victory by Hillary Clinton could result only from a rigged election is an open call to his followers to challenge the legitimacy of her presidency.  The sub-text of encouraging violence is above not below the surface.

And still so-called Republican leaders refuse to disavow this man who would pull down the pillars of our democratic government.  Pragmatism is always a major component of politics, but sometimes it goes too far.  This is one of those occasions.

Criticizing a particularly outrageous statement by Trump but continuing to support his candidacy is a moral copout.  Trying to draw meaningless semantic distinctions between not endorsing him but still voting for him is an abdication of a higher responsibility to the truth.  Making excuses for his rhetoric, as Paul Ryan did in claiming Trump’s reference to “Second Amendment remedies” was a bad joke, means the Speaker of the House is an enabler, not a leader.

Dante said it best centuries ago: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.  Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Reince Priebus and a dishonor role of others have seating guaranteed to them.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump: Eerie Parallels


My summer reading list is largely the same as my fall list: primarily history, politics and biography. I recently finished Jean Edward Smith’s “Bush”, an examination of the 43rd president of the United States. Smith, a prize-winning biographer, has previously written presidential studies of Grant, FDR and Eisenhower.

“Bush” covers a lot of familiar ground but also provides some perspectives that may change some of your previously held views. The bottom line, documented through its 660 pages, is the book’s last sentence: “Whether George W. Bush was the worst president in American history will be long debated, but his decision to invade Iraq is easily the worse foreign policy decision ever made by an American president.”

Despite that conclusion, Smith gives Bush credit for his efforts to stem the scourge of AIDs in Africa, his counter-ideological response to the financial meltdown of the economy in 2008, and even his failed initiative at immigration reform. In foreign affairs, Smith paints a picture of Bush as the “decider,” just as Bush claimed. In this account, Dick Cheney is not pulling all the strings, Donald Rumsfeld raises significant questions and Bush frequently overrules all of his military commanders.

As I was reading “Bush” in the politically charged summer of 2016, I was struck by a number of his characteristics that resonate with the current Republican presidential nominee.  Bush came to the presidency with almost no experience or, indeed, understanding of foreign affairs.  His father arranged some high level briefings in the two years before the election, but it’s clear that Bush was not a quick study or a serious student.   We all saw lots of examples of his inexperience during his presidency, but we sometimes forget the broader lesson.  Experience does matter; the presidency is not a place for on-the-job training.

Donald Trump would have us believe that his stunning lack of understanding of the rest of the world is no obstacle; that reneging on an agreement with a contractor is preparation for international diplomacy; and that his own “big brain” will guide him successfully through any challenges that arise.  If anything, Trump would come to the presidency with even less foreign affairs experience than Bush, and Bush’s lack of preparedness was a disaster for this country.

A second strain of Smith’s assessment is Bush’s resistance to learning and to accepting facts.  He never tried to understand the history of the Middle East much less the sectarian divisions within that region.  His administration concocted a link between Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorism that never existed and saw weapons of mass destruction where there were none.  All of these examples and others were a combination of willful ignorance and a predetermined desire to go to war with Iraq.

Does that sound chillingly like Donald Trump?  Fact checkers have concluded that three-fourths of his public pronouncements are wholly or partially false.  Moreover, as a political neophyte, Trump has shown no willingness to be briefed and to learn about issues that would confront him as president.  His comments on NATO, the Ukraine, Brexit and anything he discussed yesterday keep demonstrating a mental laziness that should terrify any serious voter.

According to Smith, Bush put primary trust in his own instincts, often to the exclusion of expert advisors and factual presentations.  In his case, those instincts were in part a reflection of his own deeply held religious beliefs.  Bush often counted on God to bring about the desired outcome even when all the evidence suggested he was on the wrong path.

Absent the religious connection, that’s a theme we see constantly repeated by Trump.  He doesn’t need experts because his instincts are so good.  He dismisses evidence because he “knows” better.  And his very small circle of advisors, mostly family, do not provide the kind of environment in which opposing opinions or serious questions are welcomed.

Much of the reaction to Donald Trump up to now has focused on his theatrics, his coarse and vulgar style and his breaking of all the traditional political norms.  There’s plenty there to make you do everything you can to prevent him from ever becoming president.  However, the comparison with the characteristics of a man many believe to have been the worst president this country has ever had provides an additional dimension to ponder.  Trump is so ill-prepared, by experience, temperament and knowledge, that his presidency might make Bush 43 look like an age of enlightenment.

Is It Time for Peter Franchot to Change his Party Membership?

Hogan Franchot

Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot’s political odyssey has been well-documented. During his years as a Member of the House of Delegates from Montgomery County (1987-2007), he was one of the chamber’s most out-spoken progressives, widely regarded as a partisan Democrat.

Franchot’s transformation began 10 years ago when he ran for and won the statewide office of comptroller. In his new role as the State’s tax collector, he started to demonstrate a fiscal conservative streak that had never been evident before. Responding to the demands of the office, a statewide rather than district constituency and a political calculation about shifting attitudes of Marylanders, Franchot’s new orientation has served him well in two decisive reelections.

His new office has also given him a much larger audience and a new platform, the meetings of the Board of Public Works. Franchot, who has never been accused of being camera-shy, has initiated a series of public confrontations that have won him lots of headlines as well as the animosity of many Democrats. Questions have arisen about the appropriateness of some of the fights he has picked, such as his attempt to intervene in Towson University’s decision to reduce the number of intercollegiate athletic programs.

Many Democratic elected officials have seen his actions as both grandstanding and well outside the purview of his office. During Martin O’Malley’s eight years as governor, Franchot frequently criticized O’Malley’s decisions as well as those of the General Assembly leadership.

After the 2014 Election in which Republican Larry Hogan won an upset against the Democratic nominee, Anthony Brown, Franchot veered even farther to the right. In Governor Hogan, he found an ally on issues  before the Board of Public Works, particularly the state procurement process. And, as the Comptroller continued to use the forum to advance his own pet peeves, he got the support of Hogan.

Now in the dog days of summer, about the only thing going on is Franchot and Hogan trading compliments.  They’ve even gone shopping together to promote the State’s upcoming sales tax holiday. Soon, however, Franchot will resume his crusade to move the school start date to after Labor Day and Hogan will voice his support for the effort. This comes shortly after his spring campaign railing against the absence of air conditioners in some Baltimore County schools.

The latter effort is particularly curious given that Franchot and Hogan are proposing remedies that are less fiscally responsible than the Baltimore County phased plan. Their approach is also legally questionable as they are arguing to use capital budget funds for air conditioners that have less than a 15-year life expectancy.

Much of what I’ve described is just Peter Franchot being Peter Franchot. He gets antsy when he goes very long without being in the headlines. His emphasis on fiscal restraint is certainly appropriate to his office.

However, the air conditioner war comes across much more like a deliberate political fight that he has picked with Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, who may be positioning himself to run for either governor or comptroller in 2018. Moreover, Franchot isn’t content just to have a disagreement about a public policy issue; he and his office question the motives and integrity of whoever is the opponent of the moment.

And, finally, there’s the continuing love fest with Larry Hogan. It’s clear that Franchot feels much more comfortable, politically and personally, with the governor than with any of his Democratic colleagues in the state. Few of them would even agree to my use of the word “colleague” at this point.

Is the Hogan-Franchot alliance a refreshing example of bipartisanship, as a Washington Post article just suggested? That’s a hard argument to sustain given that Hogan keeps demonstrating that he is a fiercely partisan Republican. He and Franchot certainly agree on some fiscal issues and the Governor supports the Comptroller’s public rants. But where are the examples of Franchot having gotten Hogan to support any Democratic or progressive issues?

I don’t really have any expectations that Franchot will become a Republican. He continues to cling to a self image of as a progressive, although he certainly doesn’t spend much time advocating for issues that fit that label. Franchot is supporting Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in this year’s presidential election, although that’s hardly a profile in party loyalty or courage.

The rub will come in 2018. Is there anyone in the State of Maryland who believes Franchot will support the Democratic candidate for governor that year? And if he backs Hogan, as he certainly will, how do Maryland Democrats deal with him during the campaign?

As a result, Franchot will likely face a challenge in the Democratic primary. While he seems well positioned at this point, his success may ultimately depend on Hogan maintaining the level of popularity that he currently enjoys, which is far from a sure thing.

To answer my starting question, Franchot will continue to be a Democrat but in name only. While there should be room in a political party for a range of views and perspectives, it’s hard to see the issues on which Franchot is still a Democrat.

Larry Hogan’s Visit to Trump World

larry hogan

For much of this campaign year, Larry Hogan did his best to avoid answering whether he would support Donald Trump for president. He frequently expressed annoyance at reporters who asked what was surely an incredibly obvious question. Finally, in June, he grudgingly acknowledged that he would not be voting for either Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Hogan’s belated answer implied a false equivalency between the two candidates, a notion dispelled yet again this week when 50 former Republican national security officials warned that Trump would be the most reckless president ever elected. The suggestion that Hogan was focused entirely on state matters was also belied by his earlier support for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Still, since his declaration of neutrality, Hogan has largely managed to keep his distance from Trump and the political fallout being created by his candidacy. For a multitude of reasons, Hogan has retained his high favorable rating in public opinion polls, has cultivated his image as a moderate, non-ideological Republican and has avoided major political errors.

With a relatively modest legislative agenda, Hogan has limited  his confrontations with the Democratic General Assembly. However, his main initiatives have been either defeated or substantially rewritten. His vetoes have been consistently overridden. Hogan’s greatest success has come in the area where Maryland governors have the greatest authority, the State budget.

Legislators leaders have used a variety of methods to try to negotiate with him on spending priorities. Efforts at direct negotiations have been generally ignored by the Governor. A second approach, employed in each of the first two year of his administration, has been to “wall off” funds in the budget, specifying that they can be used only for the purposes designated by the legislature’s two budget committees or not at all. Hogan keeps selecting Option B.

Last week, when he announced that he would not be spending $80 million earmarked by the General Assembly for education and “safe streets” projects, Hogan was roundly criticized by  legislator leaders as well as by education groups. Their response was totally to be expected and not particularly noteworthy.

Hogan’s reaction to the complaints, on the other hand, looked like it came straight out of Donald Trump’s playbook. His Facebook post accused them of being “union thugs”.

In the same week that he spoke at the Urban League conference in Baltimore, an event Donald Trump declined to attend, Hogan was definitely sending mixed messages about what kind of Republican he is: a conciliatory moderate or a confrontational partisan.

How do you explain the “union thug” comment in a way that makes any sense at all? The most benign explanation I could think of–and one that is totally implausible–is that Hogan thinks the word “thug” means critic or opponent. Once you reject that interpretation, the alternatives are all less appealing.

Hogan took grief from some conservative Maryland Republicans for not supporting Trump. Was the “thug” line a kind of dog whistle to let them know his heart is really with them? If you believe that much of political rhetoric is code and signaling, that explanation is possible although perhaps a bit too subtle.

In the same vein, you might argue that Hogan was merely trying to shore up his own political base by taking a cheap but popular shot at public unions, widely seen by the Right as the source of many evils. That interpretation suggests a political calculation looking toward the 2018 Election and has some logic to it.

Since we are most definitely in the area of speculation, let me offer yet a different assessment. This is far from the first time that Larry Hogan has taken what seem to be gratuitous shots at a political opponent for no really good reason. He could have turned down the Red Line in Baltimore without having called the planning process a “boondoggle.” He could have put his own stamp on the State school construction program without having personally attacked the outgoing director. He could have vetoed what he considered excessive spending without having picked out a pet project of Speaker Mike Busch, all the while knowing his veto was going to be overridden.

Hogan, a bit like the guy he won’t endorse, has a thin skin and a quick temper. He can be politically astute and calculating at one moment and petulant the next. Despite years in and around politics, albeit not elected office, he sometimes gives the impression that he feels entitled to unquestioned support without any opposition, to praise without questions, to applause without boos. Hogan may get all of that from Comptroller Peter Franchot, but he’s not likely to get it from anyone else.

An Election Year Homework Assignment


In a normal year, a presidential election has some aspects of a national civics class. We get a refresher course on our constitutional system. Candidates vie for our support through campaigns that highlight their positions on key issues, their character, and their visions for the future. As the world’s oldest democracy, we witness the peaceful transfer of power — regardless of how intense or hard-fought the election has been.

But this is not a normal year. 2016 seems far more like a class in Abnormal Psychology. The nominee of the Republican Party is rarely assessed in terms of his positions on issues since he has none beyond the vaguest of generalities. His promises are about returning America to an imaginary past in which white males run everything, everyone speaks only English, all the jobs are high paying regardless of  level of education, and the oceans are a protection against all foreign influences. It’s a world that never was, never could be and looks less and less like present day reality.

Donald Trump has broken every mold for how to run for U.S. President. He has assembled a coalition of the insulted to oppose him. He prefers a Russian dictator to our NATO allies. Even members of his own party are likely to feel his ire if they aren’t “nice” enough to him.

Trump is so far off the norm that we are now getting a steady stream of articles concluding that he is a narcissist, that he has a fundamental personality defect, or that he is a compulsive liar. Those diagnoses aren’t merely name-calling;  authors with impressive credentials in their fields provide supporting evidence straight from the candidate’s mouth.

Really, Trump is not so much a denier of facts as incredibly unfamiliar with them. He follows the Republican Party line on climate change but goes his own ungrounded way on dealings with the rest of the world, assertions about how the economy works, and views on the constitution that wouldn’t pass muster in a basic elementary school class.

And, if you take him at his word, he is terrifying. A former head of the CIA who has carefully avoided politics throughout his professional career recently announced his support for Hillary Clinton because he thinks Trump’s view are so dangerous. Trump has openly mused about the use of nuclear weapons as an option that should be available to the president.

You hardly have to hear anymore than that to return to serious questions about his personality. A thin-skinned man who can’t get past any slight even when his reaction harms him politically, the notion of Trump controlling this country’s nuclear arsenal should be enough to make any thoughtful voter turn away from him.

With all his faults, and I have barely touched on the whole list, the one that I find most troubling is his encouraging and enabling  supporters to act on their worst impulses. What we have observed during his campaign are open appeals to racism promoting words and acts which had at least been submerged in recent years. We see the ugly rants of his supporters directed at his opponent that sound more like the politics of a petty dictatorship than of a great democracy. Trump and some of his proxies have begun to talk darkly of a rigged election and to suggest that they won’t accept the outcome peacefully.

I understand that many people in this country are angry or scared and that Trump speaks to them in a way that no other politician does. I also understand that those of us who oppose Trump are unlikely to be able to reason with his supporters. They don’t seem troubled by the fact that a huge proportion of his statements are often outright lies. They seem comfortable with the ugly atmosphere that he has created. They clearly take comfort in the fictional description of Hillary Clinton that he and Fox News have created over the years. They can conduct as many “investigations” of Benghazi or Vince Foster’s death as they want. And,although they still won’t find the results  they imagine, they will continue to proclaim their own “truth”.  These are the same people who continue to assert that Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya.

I’m afraid that the Abnormal Psychology reference  I started with doesn’t apply just to Donald Trump. Those supporters who profess fealty to the U.S. Constitution but  seem no more familiar with it than he is share many other characteristics with Trump.

As I’ve argued before, the outcome of this elections is more likely to be determined by getting your supporters to the polls than by any efforts to persuade people to change their opinion. While I have moments of hopefulness as Trump continues to alienate people of common sense, I also know that the ability to rationalize his outrageous behavior will keep many people in his camp.

The only solution is for Americans of all political persuasions who believe Trump is a grave threat to our democratic system to vote for Hillary Clinton, to get as many of their friends to do the same, and to speak out against everything Trump stands for. That’s the only way we will return sanity to our political system.

After the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government the delegates had created.  His answer: “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  It’s our turn now to keep it.

The Philadelphia Story

If you’ve ever been in a city holding a national political convention, you know that there’s as much going on off the convention floor as on it.  Last week, the City of Philadelphia was transformed into a giant political laboratory.

The media covered the small part of that activity which occurred on the streets.  Supporters of Bernie Sanders were among those who engaged in demonstrations around City Hall as well as outside the Wells Fargo Center.  From the video on television, you might have thought that Philadelphia was engulfed in protests but those demonstrations represented a very minor part of what was going on during the convention.

Sanders supporters were also heard throughout the convention itself, although that was mostly through chants and efforts to drown out speakers with whom they disagreed.  Again, however, their numbers represented a small fraction of the attendees.  Sarah Silverman said the words that captured the general mood when she observed that the Bernie or Bust people were “being ridiculous.”

What will those protesters do in November?  Early indications are that a large portion of Sanders backers will come around to voting for Hillary Clinton.  You might have gotten a different impression from the media  hunt for people  willing to say they would vote for someone else.  I heard the same woman announce in two separate interviews that she would vote for Jill Stein.  A disclaimer about her not being a representative sample would have been in order.

For anyone with a longer political memory, the experience of “protest” votes leading to a Republican victory–think George Bush in 2000 as the result of the votes for Ralph Nader in Florida or Richard Nixon in 1968 in the aftermath of a deeply divided Democratic Party–underscores the  scary possibility that we could end up with Donald Trump as president.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups were holding events in every conceivable venue. They ranged from an outdoor rally at Logan Circle by organizations campaigning for commonsense gun regulations to receptions hosted by Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List and numerous environmental groups in museums and public sites throughout the city.  I cite these specific examples because most of them didn’t have a presence in Cleveland the week before.

A political convention is, in addition to its formal task of nominating a presidential candidate, a combination pep rally, networking event and fundraiser.  And if all  that didn’t keep you fully occupied, there were also plenty of celebrity sightings.  Unlike the Pope’s visit earlier in the year, with security so intense that many Philadelphians just left town, the Democratic Convention was more like a four-day festival for people of all ages, races and religions.

That reality on the ground in Philadelphia was a marked contrast to the Republican gathering in Cleveland.  The televised versions of the two conventions told the same story as the rhetoric of the speakers. One party was overwhelmingly white and resentful of anyone who isn’t. The other spoke constantly of inclusion and reflected that value in those who attended.

Beyond the headliners, the Democrats showcased lots of ordinary people who had overcome adversity, whether health, poverty or other challenges, to speak to the importance of both individual effort and community support. The speech with perhaps the greatest political impact–because it provoked another ugly response from Trump–was that of Khirzr Khan a Muslim American whose son, a captain in the U.S. Army, was killed in Afghanistan. Just when you thought the Republican candidate couldn’t get any worse, he showed that there are no limits to his inhumanity.

A number of prominent Republicans have criticized Trump’s remarks but have been unwilling to go farther.  Imagine if any of them–take Paul Ryan as an example–had the courage and integrity that Dr. Khan demonstrated in his remarks and in the days since then.  A generation of Republican leaders runs the risk of being forever stained by the failure to stand up to a narcissistic bully who has hijacked their party.

And then there was Hillary Clinton’s speech. She is not a great orator and expectations were relatively low. Her speechwriters, who I don’t think moonlight for Melania Trump, crafted remarks that fit her style and allowed her to make an effective case without trying to be something she isn’t. Clinton knows public policy, cares about the details, has a real understanding of the world in which we live with its many dangerous challenges, and doesn’t propose bumper sticker solutions.

In an election, this latter quality could be a disadvantage unless voters take the trouble to educate themselves and not be seduced by quick fixes. Donald Trump is the master of the sound bite, truly believes than any coverage is good coverage, and can’t be pinned down on any issue because he has no positions beyond the vaguest of generalities.

The Republican candidate keeps demonstrating how little he knows about the challenges he would face as president even as some of his supporters bend themselves into contortions to dismiss that problem. Rudy Giuliani, surely one of the most divisive figures on the political scene today, suggested that Trump might be able to learn on the job. Even if you accepted that rationale for supporting a totally unqualified candidate, you’d have to deal with the reality that Trump has shown no inclination to learn about issues while campaigning.

Not long after the Cleveland convention, Trump publicly urged Russia, which may have been responsible for hacking the DNC computers, to hack and turn over Hillary Clinton’s missing State Department emails. Can you imagine the Republican response if Barack Obama had said anything similar to that? They would have drafted Articles of Impeachment the next day.

It truly was much sunnier in Philadelphia. You’d be hard pressed to pick out the best speech because so many of them were really well-delivered, inspiring, and substantive.

President Obama, surely one of the most gifted orators of our time, may well have been surpassed by his wife. Michelle Obama’s speech epitomized better than any other the difference between the two parties in both tone and substance.

We now have fewer than 100 days until an election that poses a fundamental choice about the future of America.  It’s too early to pay much attention to public opinion polls. It’s too soon to make absolute assertions about what Bernie Sanders’ followers will do, but not too soon to be engaging them.

Besides waiting to see what the two campaigns will do, we also have to remember that events in the world, most of them outside our control, may influence the way in which voters  see the contest.

This election is going to be determined more by turnout than by persuasion. The biggest enemy facing Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump but the risk of apathy among her supporters. The other side of the turnout question is whether significant numbers of Republicans will conclude that Donald Trump is so anathema to their beliefs that they will either not vote or even do what many would never have imagined and vote for Clinton.

Another major unknown is whether the media will be able to pin Trump down, point out his shortcomings and misrepresentations and push for answers on his taxes and his dealings with Russia.  He keeps complaining that the press is “mean” to him, but his campaign has received incredibly little close scrutiny up to now.

Finally, of course, the ultimate responsibility will reside, as it always does, with voters.  Will they be motivated by fear and anger or by optimism and hope?  Will they pay attention to what the candidates are saying rather than to how they as voters are feeling?   And, perhaps most importantly, will they give serious thought to what kind of country they want to live in, one that is welcoming and inclusive or one that abandons the principles and values on which this country was founded in favor of a false sense of security?