The Rise of Barr and the Fall of Justice

In December 2018, President Donald Trump nominated William Barr to be the next attorney general. Trump’s original attorney general, Jeff Sessions, was cast out of Trump’s good graces after Sessions recused himself from all matters related to the investigation into the 2016 presidential election.

Sessions was a member of Trump’s campaign and therefore posed a conflict of interest, so he did the ethical thing and removed himself from overseeing any proceedings in the matter.

The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was then given the task of overseeing the investigation. Rosenstein was a career fixture in the Department of Justice, serving under three presidential administrations: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. When Rosenstein was overseeing the investigation, it was under the auspices of the Department of Justice and the FBI.

On May 3, 2017, Trump fired James Comey, the Director of the FBI. This threw most of the country into a state of panic: the President of the United States firing the head of the agency tasked with investigating him and his campaign.

As a country, we haven’t seen such a brazen act by a president since the Saturday Night Massacre on the evening of October 20, 1973. On that infamous night, President Richard Nixon, who was under investigation due to the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up, told his attorney general to fire the special prosecutor in charge of the investigation. The attorney general refused and tendered his resignation. Nixon then told his deputy attorney general. He also refused and resigned. Nixon finally approached the third highest-ranking official in the Department of Justice. He complied and the special prosecutor was fired.

After Trump fired Comey, the federal government was in a state of turmoil: the president had fired the man who was in charge of investigating him and his campaign. The parallels between the Saturday Night Massacre and the firing of James Comey were on the minds of the people who lived through the event and students of history.

On May 17, 2017, in an effort to restore confidence in the federal government –specifically maintaining the integrity of the rule of law– Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to the position of a special counsel . Rosenstein stated he “…determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.”

Mueller was regarded as a legendary figure in Washington. He served as Director of the FBI for 12 years –the term limit for FBI directors is 10 years, but he was so well regarded that Obama extended his tenure for an additional 2 years. Mueller, though a registered Republican, was renowned for his independence, thoroughness, and integrity from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Trump was well aware of Mueller’s reputation. As we later learned from Mueller’s investigation, Jeff Sessions, who was called to testify before the Mueller team, described Trump’s initial reaction when he learned Rosenstein had appointed Mueller. After Sessions gave Trump the news, he “slumped back in his chair” and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

In his moment of despair, Trump didn’t know it at the time, but there was someone scheming outside of his administration, recognizing an opportunity: William Barr. On June 8, 2018, Barr penned an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Department of Justice. In the memo, Barr argued that Trump acted within his power to fire Comey. He criticized the premise for appointing Mueller and the investigation itself. He said Trump shouldn’t be subjected to testify about possible obstruction of justice offenses before the Mueller team.

Whenever Trump learned of the memo, it must have been music to his ears. Here was Barr, a former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, writing what any reasonably-minded person would view as a 19-page cover letter for a job application. And lo and behold, out of the hundreds of eligible candidates for the position of attorney general, Trump just so happened to nominate Barr.

During his confirmation hearings, the memo was called into question. There were many Senators who believed it predisposed him to a conflict of interest in regards to how he would handle the special investigation. Nonetheless, Barr was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. On February 19, 2019, Barr was sworn into office as the Attorney General of the Department of Justice.

As the new attorney general, Barr essentially became Mueller’s boss. Mueller was appointed as a special counsel, operating under the authority of the attorney general. There’s a different set of dynamics for a special counsel than for an independent investigator. When President Bill Clinton was being investigated for the Whitewater controversy, it was led by Ken Starr who was an independent investigator. Starr, as the title suggests, was free to investigate on his own terms, independently.

Mueller completed his nearly two-year long investigation and submitted his report to Barr on March 22, 2019. The Mueller Report is 448 pages long, not including all the relevant case files and underlying evidence. However, after only two days, Barr released a 4-page summary to the public, which gave Barr’s “principle conclusions” of the report.

Barr essentially wrote that Mueller determined there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He also wrote that Mueller was unable to find sufficient evidence of Trump obstructing justice. In the summary, Barr didn’t quote a single full-sentence from the report. He quoted only a few sentence fragments, which made some analysts suspicious.

The Barr summary set off a media firestorm. The most highly anticipated report –2 years in the making– had been completed, but was not yet released to the public. The only thing the press and the public had to base their initial impressions on was Barr’s summary.

Since the only insight into the Mueller Report was the Barr summary, it set a narrative of exoneration that spread across the country. The Washington Post’s headline read, “Mueller finds no conspiracy.” Similarly, The New York Times’s headline read, “MUELLER FINDS NO TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY.” Trump told reporters, “It was a complete and total exoneration.” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s press secretary, tweeted, “A great day for America and for President [Trump]. After two years of wild anti-Trump hysteria, the President and his millions of supporters have been completely vindicated.”

On April 4, 2019, The Washington Post reported that members of Mueller’s team expressed frustration over Barr’s summary, which is significant because Mueller and his team are known for being tight-lipped. There was not a single leak from the Mueller team during the investigation. A team member said,  “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead.”

On April 9, 2019, Barr testified before a congressional committee in the House. During the proceedings, Barr was asked by Representative Charlie Crist if he knew why Mueller’s team had expressed frustration with his summary. “No, I don’t,” Barr replied.

On April 10, 2019, Barr testified before the congressional committee in the Senate. Senator Chris Van Holden asked Barr if Mueller supported his conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that Trump had obstructed justice. “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion,” Barr claimed.

The only people who would have access to the Mueller Report was the Attorney General’s office. Barr would take more than a month to release the report to the public. He said he needed time to make redactions, which at the time implied Mueller had not redacted his report for a public release.

After more than a month of having the narrative of the Barr summary seeping into the consciousness of the public, Barr set a date for the release of the redacted Mueller Report: Thursday, April 18, 2019.

The timing is significant because it was released on a Thursday, which was a strategic release in terms of muffling news coverage, being at the tail end of the work week, especially considering the report is 448 pages. It takes times to read and process that many pages, therefore revelations, scope, and context weren’t going to come out immediately. On April 18th Congress wasn’t in session, Passover was taking place, and the following day was Good Friday.

The public relations strategy for the report’s release isn’t limited to just timing. On the eve of the report’s release, the Department of Justice announced Barr would be holding a press conference on the morning of April 18th. The press conference was held before the report was even released, giving Barr another opportunity to rehash and reinforce the narrative being sold to the public.

A few hours after the press conference, the redacted Mueller Report was released to the public. In the ensuing hours, days, and weeks —as reporters, analysts, lawyers, and the general public had read the report— it became evident that Barr’s summary was at the very least misleading, and at worst a concerted cover-up to minimize the political fallout from the report’s findings.

On May 1, 2019, The Washington Post and The New York Times both reported that they had obtained copies of letters Mueller had sent to Barr in the days following the release of Barr’s summary. Mueller wrote the first letter to Barr on March 25, 2019, expressing concern that Barr’s letter had insufficiently portrayed the team’s conclusions. Mueller also attached a copy of the executive summaries he and his team had written, which summarized the report. This indicates that Barr didn’t need to write a summary; Mueller already wrote one.

The second letter was written just two days later on March 27, 2019. Mueller was much more direct in his second letter, saying the Barr summary “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.” Mueller also added, “[The Barr summary] threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Senator Van Holden, after learning of the existence of Mueller’s letters, has said that Barr’s testimony, claiming that he didn’t know what Mueller thought of the conclusions in his summary is “the most recent example of the attorney general acting as chief propagandist for the Trump administration instead of answering questions in a straightforward and objective manner. You now have a pattern of misleading conduct from the attorney general.”

With the revelation of the Mueller letters now surfacing, we have a much better understanding of what exactly was happening from the time Barr received the report from Mueller. Barr didn’t have to write a summary in the first place; Mueller and his team already prepared executive summaries. There was no need to wait for more than a month to release the report, which Barr claimed needed to be redacted. Mueller and his team had already made the necessary redactions. Moreover, Barr misled Congress and the American people when he claimed he wasn’t aware of Mueller’s opinion of his summary. Mueller wrote not one but two letters expressing his concern that the report’s findings were being mischaracterized.

Barr testified before the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, 2019, but he was brazenly evasive and unforthcoming. He used delay tactics with some Senators, trying to run out their allotted time with answers lacking substance.

He was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee the following day, but informed the committee the night before that he refused to appear on their terms. Barr also chose to ignore a deadline set by the committee to provide an unredacted version of the report, as well as provide the underlying body of evidence gathered by the Mueller team.

Barr was not serving the interests of the American people; he was serving the interests of Trump. Instead of acting as the nation’s chief law enforcement official –upholding the rule of law– he’s acting as Trump’s defense attorney, manipulating the law.

We’re currently in the midst of a constitutional crisis. With Barr refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, refusing to appear before committees, and snubbing deadlines, the attorney general is dismissing the legislative branch of the government. He’s not only broken his oath to protect and defend the constitution, he’s waged an all-out assault against Article I of the constitution.

Trump has instructed his White House officials to ignore subpoenas from the House. The Treasury Department has refused to turn over his tax returns. He’s suing Capital One and Deutsche Bank to prevent them from turning over his financial records to the congressional committees who subpoenaed them.

It’s easy to let the constant stream of news generated by this administration to desensitize and, as a result, normalize the daily attacks on our democracy, but it’s critical that the People don’t become jaded and complacent. With the legislative branch under attack, we’re just a step away from authoritarian rule. The founder’s warned us about the fragility of democracies. If we want to continue to live under a representative democracy, we cannot let the powers vested in our representatives to become null and void.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

John Adams

Trump and Putin: The Greatest Mystery of Our Time

President Donald J. Trump attacks anyone who opposes him or holds him to account.1 Trump’s become infamous for his Twitter tirades against his opponents. If you’re a public figure, and you’re not openly supporting or praising him, his behavior exemplifies that he considers you his enemy.

Trump’s Attacks Against Americans and American Allies


Trump has attacked news organizations, individual journalists, television programs, American companies, state governors, mayors, Gold Star military families, actors and actresses, comedians, athletes, professional sport leagues, among many others.

He’s attacked our own democratic institutions. He’s attacked the Congress, the FBI, a handful of government intelligence agencies, federal courts, individual judges, whole states, U.S. territories, among many other government bodies.

These attacks aren’t limited to unfavorable news coverage, citizens, or Democrats speaking out against his conduct; he’s also attacked members of his own administration. When Jeff Sessions was Attorney General and recused himself from having any involvement in Russia-related investigations, he went on a long campaign of discrediting him. When Steve Bannon, a former senior advisor to Trump, was pushed out of the administration, he created a nickname for him: “Sloppy Steve.”

Putin’s Attack on America


With the sheer scope of his domestic and foreign attacks, you’d think there’s no one who could escape Trump’s raft. However, there’s been one prominent and astonishing exception: Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. Putin uses the title of “president” as a facade –he’s a dictator. Putin has a well-documented history of murdering political opponents, journalists, and even his own citizens.

Russia has been an adversary of the United States since the end of World War II. We were involved in a Cold War with the former Soviet Union for nearly half a century. The Cold War wasn’t always necessarily cold. The U.S. engaged in proxy wars with the Soviet Union (e.g. Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.). In 1962, when the Soviet Union was caught deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, there was a brief period of peace between the two powers. This all changed when Vladimir Putin became president in 2000. Since then, Russia’s become an oligarchy with Putin serving as its absolute ruler. In his eyes, the Cold War never ended, and as a result, has complete and utter disdain for the United States. His true intention is to bring Russia back to its Soviet “glory” days.

In recent history, Putin launched a “sweeping and systematic” attack on the lifeblood of our democracy –the electoral process– during the 2016 presidential election. Russia’s interference isn’t the opinion of a few intelligence analysts, it’s a well-established fact. The American people first received confirmation of Russia’s interference when every American intelligence agency (e.g. FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) were in agreement that the attack had taken place. The recent release of the Mueller Report (Volume I) corroborated the fact that Putin’s massive cyber-warfare offensive happened.

We weren’t attacked with troops on the ground and traditional weapons of war. Putin aimed to divide and conquer with social engineering schemes and technology. Instead of firing a missle, Russia planted poisonous seeds within our society to sow discord, which ultimately led to social strife and division.

The Greatest Mystery of Our Time


We’ve seen Donald Trump’s willingness to attack his real or perceived opponents. His attacks against his opponents are graceless, unhinged, and ruthless. He’s had no trouble calling his own people “treasonous,” discrediting American institutions, and calling the free press the “enemy of the people.”

When you look at the history of American relations with Russia, and specifically Putin’s attack against the American people, any sensible person understands that Putin is our greatest adversary. And yet, Trump hasn’t made a single negative comment about Putin. In fact, to the contrary, Trump has not only made favorable statements and tweets about Putin, he’s literally sided with Putin on Russian interference in our election. He’s taken the word of a brutal dictator over our entire national security apparatus.

This leads any reasonably-minded person to ask reasonable and serious questions: If Putin is our greatest adversary, why isn’t he viewed so by Trump? Why would the President of the United States take the role as Putin’s defender? How could a president, who attacks his own citizens and institutions, care less about the attack waged against the country he swore to protect and defend?

With all of these unknowns, there’s one thing that’s certain: when the truth is uncovered, it will not be benign.

Reference:

  1. The 567 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List – The New York Times

Trump: A President of His People, by His People, for His People

The United States is the government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” and therefore the President of the United States is obligated to be president to all the people.

All presidents have been members of political parties: Democrats and Republicans form our modern two-party system. When presidential candidates are on the campaign trail, they will often go on the offensive against their opponent and their opponent’s political views. There’s nothing nefarious about this; they’re rallying their base to their cause and trying to gain the support of those still undecided.

However, once Election Day ends and a new president is chosen, it’s been a long-standing American tradition for the president-elect to tone down the partisan rhetoric and rise to their position not as president of their political party –but to cast aside the polarization of political parties– and ascend as the President of the United States, representing the welfare and interests of all the people.

THE RISE OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP


With the 2016 election of Donald Trump, the president-to-all tradition has become a thing of the past. When his opponent for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, conceded in the early morning hours of November 9th, 2016, President-elect Trump gave his victory speech.

Despite waging one of the most callous presidential campaigns in American history, his victory speech indicated he would rise above the callousness and carry on the president-for-all tradition:

“Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.”

BREAKING THE PLEDGE


It didn’t take very long for President Trump to break his pledge. In fact, the pledge was broken before he was even inaugurated. In the month after the election, President-elect Trump gave nearly a dozen post-election victory rallies. All of these victory rallies were held in states that casted their electoral votes to Trump.

On January 20, 2017, the day of Trump’s inauguration, he already filed the paperwork for his 2020 reelection, earlier than any president in American history. And, as we have learned, this isn’t a matter of Trump being clerically expeditious. Instead, he was paving the way to perpetually conduct political rallies for his supporters.   

His first post-election campaign rally was held on February 18, 2017 in Melbourne, FL –a re-election rally being held less than a month after being sworn into office. Trump held rallies at least once a month for the remainder of 2017, and with increasing frequency, continues to hold them.

A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED BASE OF AMERICA


President Trump’s post-election rallies were no different than his pre-election rallies. The rallies were used, at least in part, to water the seeds of discord that he had planted in his pre-election rallies. They were used as a vehicle to keep his base engaged and enraged, using polarizing rhetoric against his perceived enemies. He used the platform to both mock and discredit his perceived enemies. This, by design, made Trump’s enemies his supporters’ enemies, which only served to make his supporters more fervent. He is their dark shepherd and they are his flock.

In a recent news analysis, Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, wrote an article asserting President Trump has done away with the president-for-all tradition, “Mr. Trump does not bother with the pretense. He is speaking to his people, not the people. He has become, or so it often seems, the president of the United Base of America.”

As a result of unfavorable reporting, one of the first American institutions attacked by Trump was the free press. The press hasn’t often been viewed favorably by former presidents, but their frustrations were usually controlled and relatively based on reason (e.g. in times of war, a president wouldn’t want the press hurting the war effort with unfavorable reports).

With Trump, he openly expresses his disdain toward the press, going so far as to call them “the enemy of the people,” which is incredibly dangerous rhetoric for a president to be using. The free press is protected by the First Amendment. Their purpose is to inform the public, so the public is capable of making informed decisions. Therefore, Trump’s rhetoric undermines the lifeblood of democracy: reliable information.

Unfortunately, “the enemy of the people” language wasn’t a one-time occurrence. He’s made the accusation dozens of times: at rallies, in interviews, on Twitter, etc. As recently as February 20, 2019, Trump tweeted, “The New York Times reporting is false. They are a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

Trump has also used inflammatory rhetoric against Democrats. He’s mocked Democratic members of congress, making up nicknames for Democrats he’s targeting at the moment. The nicknames aren’t new for Trump. He’s been doing it since he started his 2016 presidential bid. He’s had nicknames for his GOP primary opponents, and he’s even referred to members of his own administration with these juvenile nicknames.

The extent of the president’s common decency is virtually non-existent. Having poor decency is one thing, but making serious accusations against Democrats is something else entirely. When he felt Democrats weren’t clapping enough during his 2018 State of the Union address, some days later he told his supporters at a rally:

“They were like death. And un-American. Somebody said ‘treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not?”

For a president to use the word “treason” in reference to Democrats not applauding him is deeply troubling for a democratic society. These are senators and representatives who were put into power by the citizens of their respective states and districts in the United States –the country Trump was elected to lead. So it’s not only an attack on the Democratic members of congress themselves, it’s also, in effect, an attack on the citizens who elected them.

CONCLUSIONS


As Peter Baker wrote in his recent analysis on Trump, “He is speaking to his people, not the people.” How should the 71,791,044 Americans –53.3% of those who casted a presidential ballot in 2016– feel about the fact we have a president who is openly partial to a portion of Americans and not all Americans? We should be justifiably concerned.

It’s not as if his supporters make up a majority of the country. He received 46.7% of the popular vote, which means most Americans did not vote for him. Since becoming president, polling data has been even more unfavorable. Based on Gallup polling, the average job approval rating for Trump is 40% (based on his 820 days in office).

Trump and his followers have a symbiotic relationship: Trump receives power and adulation; his followers receive their political showman at rallies and on Twitter, and a perceived ally in the White House. The problem is the rest of the country –the majority of the country– has no ally in the White House. You only need to look as far as Trump’s Twitter account to understand that if you’re not siding with him or praising him, you’re against him.

America’s always had to deal with the consequences of elections, but these consequences have virtually always been focused on policy positions. With the rise of Trump, we’ve had to deal with a set of much different and darker consequences: a threat to our democratic institutions and the normalization of rhetoric and behavior that was once unbecoming of a president.

The president’s inflammatory rhetoric is used to create division within our country. He doesn’t aim to mend the discord; he aims to sow more seeds of it amongst his supporters to reap the political benefits gained from a group of people who’ve been misled and disinformed.

Our country has experienced times of national crisis before. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, southern states began seceding from the Union, which inevitably led to the Civil War. Lincoln’s fight was founded on domestic policy and morality. While it’s unlikely we’re facing an impending civil war, we can still learn from what leadership looks like from a man who was president to all in a time of great civil strife–even reaching out to the very people who pledged their allegiance to a rebel force.

And so, it’s fitting to close on the words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Update: After writing this article, Donald Trump made another “enemy of the people” statement against the free press: “The Washington Post and New York Times are, in my opinion, two of the most dishonest media outlets around. Truly, the Enemy of the People!”

A Brief History of How the Republican and Democratic Parties Swapped Ideologies

There has been much discussion regarding the Republican Party’s ideological transformation from its inception in the mid-1850s to its modern ideological platform. Unfortunately, most of the discussion comes from the misinformed, painting the Republican Party with a Lincoln-like grandeur while painting the Democratic Party as a historical villain.

In fact, much has changed from the time the party was established to the Republican Party we know today. There are some people in our country who push the false narrative that the Republican Party is still “the party of Lincoln.” This false narrative also serves to stain the modern Democratic Party with our greatest national sin and our greatest internal conflict: slavery and the Civil War, respectively.

ORIGINS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY


In 1846, the United States was split in half over slavery: it was illegal in the thirteen northern states and legal in the thirteen southern states. The southern economy was completely dependent on slave labor; the northern economy was fueled by the Industrial Revolution.

Since abolitionists didn’t yet have the power to take on the slave states, they tried to ensure that the U.S. territories would remain free. However, with the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, slavery was now an option for the territories. This was the event that led to the founding of the Republican Party.

The Republican Party was founded on being anti-slavery, pro-civil liberties, as well as being in favor of economic reform. Within a few years of its founding, the Republican Party had its first president: Abraham Lincoln.

Before he even took the oath of office, slave states were already succeeding from the United States. They feared Lincoln would not only prevent the expansion of slavery into other territories, but that he would seek to abolish it all together. Once the slave states started succeeding, they had crossed the proverbial Rubicon. Lincoln had to fight to keep the Union intact, which led to the deadliest war in American history.

SWAPPING POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES


The Republican Party, originally a party in favor of a large and powerful federal government, would become the party of limiting the power of the federal government. The Democratic Party, in the Civil War and Reconstruction Era, opposed a large and powerful federal government and supported states’ rights.

This sounds strange to us today because it’s exactly the opposite of the modern Republican Party’s and Democratic Party’s respective ideologies. How did this happen? Well, as with any study of history, it’s complicated.

The following events played critical roles in completing the ideological swap:

  • During the Reconstruction Era, the Republican Party, which had always been a supporter of big government and big business –the two not necessarily being mutually exclusive– broke into different factions. Some Republicans had greater interests in big business than others, leading to more alternative viewpoints within the party. The factions within the party were at different ends of the political spectrum; some more progressive, while others more conservative.  
  • Around the turn of the century, William Jennings Bryan, a powerful Democrat, muddied the political waters between the two parties. He was in support of giving the federal government more power when it came to pursuing social justice. This gave the Democratic Party a more progressive faction, which was one of the first steps in its transition.
  • In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt (R) became president. He was a more progressive member of the Republican Party, at least as far as big business is concerned. He imposed sweeping regulations against massive business trusts, such as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. After serving his two terms, Roosevelt tried to make a political comeback, leaving the Republican Party and founding the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party). While he didn’t succeed with his run, it did have consequences. The progressives Republicans in the party lost their influence and power within the party, which led to the Republican Party taking on more conservative leadership.
  • The ideological swap made a quantum leap when Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) became president in 1933. When he took power, the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. FDR created the New Deal, which was his strategy for economic recovery. It used the power of the federal government to impose regulations on banks and big business, financial protections for citizens, and created numerous federal programs to promote economic recovery. He also initiated a second wave of the New Deal which focused on social safety net programs, such as establishing the Social Security Administration.
  • In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson (D) is president and civil rights is a major social issue. Johnson, being a Texan, was a southern Democrat. The southern Democrats (known as the Dixiecrats) were a powerful faction of the Democratic Party. They were pro-segregation and therefore opponents of civil rights. Johnson pushed for, and finally signed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was the final shot across the bow for most white southern Democrats. As a result, the party was losing the support of white Americans in the south, but at the same time had gained the support of black Americans since the Democratic Party was now seen as the party leading the fight for civil rights.
  • With the democratic fallout in the south from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Republican Party initiated the Southern Strategy. It appealed to the racist sentiments of southern whites –angry that their society was changing since black Americans now had the protection of civil rights, backed by the federal government. This paved the way for a mass exodus: turning southern Democrats into southern Republicans.

CONCLUSIONS


The ideological swap didn’t happen in one fell swoop. The swap wasn’t nefarious or conspiratorial, but simply a reflection of changing attitudes over long periods of time. It was a slow, incremental process swayed by the winds of history.

There’s a significant amount of misinformation and disinformation on this historical topic, which has been confusing the public’s understanding of the history of America’s two preeminent political parties.

The topic has been misunderstood for some time, but with the ascension of President Donald J. Trump, millions of Americans are operating under a different set of facts –“alternative facts,” as one Trump advisor put it. And it’s become a ripe source for propaganda peddlers who argue the Republican Party is still “the party of Lincoln,” the Great Emancipator and Savior of the Union. And using this faulty logic implies the Democratic Party is forever branded as the party of slavery. These are troubling times we live in when propagators of disinformation seek to distort history for their own personal or political gain.

So, the Republican Party being regarded as “the party of Lincoln,” while technically true since he was a republican, is nonetheless a misleading and manipulative statement. Lincoln’s ties to the modern Republican Party exists only in name and not by any meaningful ideological or rhetorical virtues.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Abraham Lincoln

News versus Opinion

In order for a citizen to make informed decisions, it’s critical to understand the difference between news and opinion. The unsuspecting news consumer could easily be confused by the two. Some news and media organizations have clear designations between the two, while others don’t. News is an objective process; opinion is subjective.

News


News is the reporting of objective, fact-based information by journalists. They investigate a story using tried and true methods –citing public records and documents, interviewing persons relevant to the story, and corroborating the facts between their sources, among other processes. Once enough information is gathered, a news story is produced. The report is then scrutinized editors and by a fact-checking process. When a story is green lit, it’s then released to the public.

While the vast majority of news stories are factually solid, journalists aren’t immune to making the occasional mistake. If a mistake is made, a correction or retraction is published to reconcile the integrity of the reporting.

Opinion


Opinion is a subjective interpretation of a particular story or topic. The opinion piece is produced by someone knowledgeable of the story or topic. In print media, it’s typically done through columnists, editorial boards, and Op-Ed (i.e. opinion editorial) contributors. Newspapers clearly identify the opinion section, ensuring the reader doesn’t confuse an opinion article for a news article.

On television news, the line between news and opinion can be blurry, sometimes very blurry. It’s very easy for the uninformed news consumer to mistake an opinion show for a news program. The viewer tunes into a “news” channel, sees an anchor, and then assumes they’re receiving a rundown of cold-hard facts. Some shows are entirely opinion-based –taking current events and then sermonizing on them through the lens of their own worldview. Other shows have a mixed format: an anchor will report on a fact-based, objective subject, but then turn to a panel of pundits (e.g. analysts, experts) to share their personal opinions on a story.

The difference between news and opinion


It’s incredibly important to understand the difference between news and opinion when consuming media. If someone doesn’t understand the difference, it could potentially lead to becoming misinformed. For example, watching a strictly opinion-based show doesn’t necessarily give the consumer all of the relevant facts. It’s as if you’re listening to a one-sided debate, but never getting the opportunity to hear the other side of the debate. This is akin to reading a review of a horror movie by someone who detests horror movies. It’s highly unlikely that you’re going to walk away with a well-rounded review.

The best approach to truly understanding a story is to always start with the news. The news will give you the facts, the context, and any other relevant information required to understand a story. Moreover, it’s always a healthy practice to use more than one news source. From there, you can then –based on the facts– form your own opinion. If you want dive deeper into a story, you could read or listen to qualified pundits to find out their take.

It’s important to remember that we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re never entitled to our own facts.


Note: this article was edited for grammar, as well as providing some additional content.