“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
I could imagine no more persuasive illustration of this maxim than the response by much of the GOP base to allegations of Russian hacking in the election, which to a truly bewildering degree represents a previously-unimaginable display of uncritical party thinking.
(Note: for the purposes of this article, I’m going to take it for granted that credible allegations of intervention in the presidential election by a historically-belligerent power is a serious problem that demands a close look – if you don’t agree with that premise, all I can say is this blog probably isn’t for you.)
A useful illustration of this phenomenon is the comment thread to the Wall Street Journal article Intelligence Agencies Say Russia Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ to Aid Donald Trump in Election. If you have the stomach for it, it’s worth reading through.
A few representative samples:
“We should have no confidence in these Obama hirelings, all of whom are masters of deception.”
“Confirms that a couple agencies are politicized. I can’t imagine being the head of the FBI, CIA, or NSA, and be subjected to having James Clapper as the President’s mouthpiece for my agency.”
“Big, fat, politically motivated, nothing burger.”
“Too bad she didn’t protect her data better.”
“Hillary supporters are looking for someone to blame.”
Here we are supposedly talking about the intelligent, reasonable conservatives, right? This isn’t Breitbart or InfoWars. But one commenter after another derisively dismisses accusations without evidence or coherent reasoning.
Similar attitudes are documented in the New York Times article “What’s the Big Deal?’ Ask Trump Voters on Russia Hacking Report“, where we learn that concerns about hacking are “sour grapes” from “a bunch of crybabies.” A Louisiana Trump supporter opines “If that’s what it took, I’m glad they did it.”
This raises a very serious question regarding the overwhelming failure of reason and evidence to prevail in this debate.
I’ve stated my core political commitments in my About page; the first is “rational, evidence-based discourse is the legitimate basis for political consensus.” Clearly what we’re observing is a breakdown of that principle to a degree we haven’t seen in decades.
Before we can think about how to address it, I think it’s important to begin by understanding what is happening and why. For that, we can learn a lot from the social sciences.
I would like to start with “the perfectly obvious” facts that I mentioned before. This, more than anything else, is the place where reason and dialog stop.
“The perfectly obvious” is a dangerously under-analyzed mode of thought which is all-too-often either unquestioningly embraced by believers, or uncritically dismissed as being unfounded by non-believers. At this point it should be, well, perfectly obvious that we can no longer afford that luxury.
How do political judgments become fixed in our minds? One way to understand this process is to consider the work of Carol Fleisher Feldman, who researched the ways that people relate to their own beliefs in an ingenious series of experiments . She found that people relate their own conclusions very differently from the way they relate to their hypotheses.
A hypothesis is generally perceived by the holder as something that exists “in the mind.” It is regarded as fluid, open, and susceptible to revision. However, once people reach a conclusion, their judgments are projected into the world and are regarded as empirical facts. They are generally perceived as fixed, stable truths about the world, perceived with a clarity and determinateness similar to our sense perception of objects in our environment. Feldman refers to the process of projecting our conclusions onto the external world as “ontic dumping.”
In other words, our conclusions are “perfectly obvious,” and they appear to consciousness as self-evident facts about the world.
That this psychological disposition has assumed a role in public discourse which now threatens to undermine the central role of reason and analysis in political discourse is, I hope, perfectly clear. To fall back to our principal example, to many a Trump supporter, it is perfectly obvious that what we’re seeing is a politicized witch hunt carried out by Democrats and establishment figures who can’t tolerate their resounding defeat at the polls.
Once political conclusions are reached, they can become extremely difficult to challenge, even with clear factual evidence. In a now-classic 2006 study, Nyhan and Reifler demonstrate in a series of experiments that many people actually become more entrenched in beliefs when they are presented with counter-evidence. The authors would later speculate on the basis of cognitive dissonance theory that people identify with their beliefs, and construe counter-evidence as personal attacks (for example, see here).
There is a great deal more to be said about this topic, many questions to be raised and answered, and a lot of research to be considered. I will return to these questions from other angles shortly.
We must, however, resist the temptation of jumping ahead to the end and formulating quick hypotheses about how to “reach” people and persuade them to take issues like climate change or Russian hacking seriously. That is a far greater problem, and the underlying social and psychological issues are extraordinarily complex.
 These findings are reported in her article “Thought from language: the linguistic construction of cognitive representations,” published in Bruner and Haste’s Making Sense; The Child’s Construction of World.
A lot of people are asking if we can believe the CIA on Russian hacking – that is a red herring. Hanging this issue on the CIA’s credibility is an intentional strategy by the Trump campaign to distract from the overwhelming evidence. The goal is to sew doubt by implying that we’d have to take the CIA’s word for it – that is false.
17 intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians hacked DNC computers to discredit the Clinton campaign. Russia is currently under heavy US sanctions imposed by Barack Obama. Trump has repeatedly implied he would lift those sanctions, in so many words. He just nominated a candidate for Secretary of State who received a medal of friendship from Russia a few years ago, and who is an executive at an oil company that stands to directly benefit to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars if the sanctions are lifted. Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort resigned just a few months ago because of inappropriate ties to pro-Russian forces in Crimea.
McCain, McConnel, and Paul Ryan have all said this demands investigation. Trump went on national television and directly called on hackers to go after Hillary’s “missing emails” for heaven’s sake. These are HIS WORDS:
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
This is not about the CIA – that is a diversionary tactic. Don’t buy it, go back to the evidence. It is overwhelming, and obvious.
Although overt racism is still a serious issue in the United States, a more insidious, widespread, and dangerous problem is a covert form of racism that I call New Racism.
New Racism is practiced by people who harbor racist attitudes and beliefs, but who have internalized the lesson that overt racism is a fringe position that leads to censure and exclusion.
My hope is that this concept will assist you in clearly recognizing racism in its dominant contemporary form, so you don’t have to waste time mincing words, or find yourself rhetorically checked by people demanding evidence that Donald Trump is racist, whether he appoints Bannon and Sessions or not.
When you close your eyes and think of a “racist,” what do you imagine? Perhaps you see a modern-day Archie Bunker, watching Fox News on a flat screen TV. You may see hooded Klansmen in formation, or skinheads spray painting swastikas on schools.
Or you may see black-and-white photos of Birmingham police officers attacking well-dressed demonstrators with fire hoses and dogs. This image is indelibly linked with racism in the popular imagination in part because the civil rights movement of the 60s was so successful in establishing it as a living reality. Using concrete images and historical examples brought home the fact that racism is not just an attitude or belief, but has real consequences.
Martin Luther King, one of the greatest orators of the 20th century, was a master at painting word pictures to motivate moderate Americans to take a stand in the struggle. In his “Hammer on Civil Rights,” for example, he talks about one of the most dull, undramatic things you could think of – deliberation on a civil rights bill in the Congress.
To make this topic come to life, he had to illustrate what was at stake in a way people could feel. He did so by appealing to imagery that everyone already knew, a scene that was recognizable to anyone who had seen an issue of Life in the last five years:
As had been foreseen, the bill survived intact in the House. It has moved to the Senate, where a legislative confrontation reminiscent of Birmingham impends. Bull Connor became a weight too heavy for the conscience of Birmingham to bear. There are men in the senate who now plan to perpetuate the injustices Bull Connor so ignobly defended. His weapons were the high-pressure hose, the club and the snarling dog; theirs is the filibuster. If America is as revolted by them as it was by Bull Connor, we will have victory.
He illustrates the battle against racism in the Senate by figuratively comparing it to the familiar marches in the South, both drawing from and reinforcing the common imagery used to understand and recognize racism and its effects.
Dr. King’s marches in the South armed him rhetorically for the rest of his career with an arsenal of images that he could use over and over again to paint a picture. He loved calling out Eugene “Bull” Connor by name, as it immediately conjures the image of a brutish, hulking opponent wielding physical violence against unarmed demonstrators.
What we see here is the link between the idea of racism and images in the public imagination. The burning cross and the swastika, the crew-cut police officer with the southern accent – these are fundamental references for people to understand what racism is. We know what it looks like.
Or do we?
My contention is that we have become captive to these images of racism, to a degree. There is a danger that old ideas about racism keep us trapped in an idea world that was developed in the past, and they no longer helps us to recognize the real thing, as it exists today. “Bull” Connor tells us something about racism in Birmingham in 1963, not in racism Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Chicago in 2016.
Overt expressions of racism do exist in the US, and we must be extremely concerned by the indications that they are taking on a new potency after the November election. We have seen an alarming spike in hate crime reports in recent months.
But neo-Nazis and Klan rallies remain fringe occurrences that attract a disproportionate amount of media attention. The National Policy Institute rally in November, for example, was the focus of several national articles when members gave Nazi-like salutes to Donald Trump, but the rally itself drew only around 200 participants.
We must be concerned about outright white supremacy, but I would argue that an excessive focus on these gestures, which correspond to our usual mental image of racism, distract from a far more dangerous and widespread form that I will call New Racism.
No Smoking Gun
The key distinguishing feature of the New Racism is that there is no smoking gun – there are no racial slurs, no declarations that the white race is superior, no call for laws or policies that directly and explicitly target minorities. There is, instead, a systematic focus of positions and policies that just happen to harmonize neatly with a belief in white supremacy, or that target people who just happen to be minorities.
The reason that racism has overwhelmingly taken this form in recent decades is simple – contemporary social norms in the United States strongly disfavor overt racism. An overtly racist joke or put-down can push people outside of the center of public discourse, but New Racism is far more difficult to establish, and easier to defend against.
Let’s say someone is racist at heart, but they have internalized the lesson that telling ethnic jokes makes it hard to run for governor. Or let’s say we have someone with racist attitudes who doesn’t even consider themselves to be racist – my guess is that most New Racists probably don’t. How can such a person be identified, and in what sense can we say they are racist?
To answer that question, let’s take a quick look at one model for understanding how language works. My definition of New Racism draws from the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and his idea of “family resemblance.”
In his book Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein illustrates the idea of family resemblance using the example of games. How do we define the word “game”? Well, there are many different types of games – board games, card games, ball games, the Olympic Games, and so on. Is there any single feature that is common to all of them, some characteristic that we can point to and say “If a thing has this characteristic, we can call it a game”?
Maybe they are all games because they have rules? But trials also have rules, so that can’t be it. Or perhaps because they are all forms of entertainment? No, we also watch movies for entertainment.
Once we are satisfied that there is no single feature that all games possess that lets us say “that’s a game” – that is, we have no smoking gun – then we have to move to a slightly more complicated model.
We don’t call something a game because it has a particular feature. Rather, we call things games because of a bunch of different characteristics they possess – they’re fun, they have rules, they have pieces or equipment, they’re competitive, they have an element of chance, and so on. Maybe we can list ten features that most games have, and if something has six or seven, we will call it a game.
Wittgenstein said that we recognize a game by its family resemblance to other games. It’s like we have six sisters, and four of them have red hair, five have freckles, three have green eyes, five are very tall, and four of them have long noses. There’s no single feature they all possess, but we still recognize that they resemble one another.
This is the model of meaning I am proposing for the new racism – there are number of features you tend to find in the new racist, and when you find several of them, you have probably found one. Not that you will be able to convince the new racist of that – they will no doubt reply that they haven’t told a racist joke since they were six and they just want what’s fair for everyone. But we can’t be taken in by this – it’s a waste of our time.
Characteristics of the New Racist
What traits do new racists possess in various combinations? Let’s run through some of them.
I repeat that no one attribute is sufficient in itself to establish that an individual is racist, though some of them probably come pretty close. But if you find five or six of these in a single person, well, it’s a red flag, to put it mildly. It’s indicative of a racist psychology.
1) A fixation on minor social problems or low-risk threats associated with minorities, such as fear of undocumented immigrants voting illegally, fear of terrorist attacks by refugees, or terror of being mugged by blacks.
2) A strongly-held belief that problems in the United States are primarily caused by foreigners or minorities.
3) A tendency to be irrationally skeptical or critical of minorities, such as questioning whether or not Obama was born in Kenya.
4) Use of stereotyped language and ideas in understanding minorities, such as the belief that blacks are not industrious.
5) A tendency to dehumanize minorities or to cast them as fundamentally different.
6) An obsession with the threat of sexual violence posed to white women by minorities.
7) A strong, emotional opposition to social policies intended to benefit disadvantaged minority populations, such as furious opposition to affirmative action and welfare programs.
8) Association with groups that organize around these principles as a core ideology.
9) Strong intolerance of mild attempts to moderate public discourse, with frequent, disparaging criticism of “politically correct” values.
You can waste a lot of time agonizing over whether or not individuals are “really racist” if they haven’t been caught using slurs. We should not be taken in by lame equivocations, or feel paralyzed in challenging racist programs because we lack a smoking gun. We should also not mince words – people who lay awake at night, angry because Mexicans are streaming into the country taking jobs and committing rape are racists, whether they are Klan members or not.
Types of New Racist
One can distinguish between two types of new racist: 1) overt racists who have learned to keep silent in public regarding their views for fear of censure, and 2) people who do not believe that they are racist, but who harbor racist attitudes and consistently act in racist ways.
Overt racists who have learned to keep silent are a very serious problem. For a glimpse at how serious, I highly recommend Mike German’s Washington Post op-ed Behind the Lone Terrorist, a Pack Mentality, written in 2005. German is a former FBI officer who infiltrated violent organizations and learned how they developed strategies to protect themselves from public scrutiny, and how to indirectly support operations such as Anders Breivik’s attack on school children in Norway or the Oklahoma City Bombing without being directly culpable, and thereby legally accountable:
Imagine a very smart leader of an extremist movement, one who understands the First Amendment and criminal conspiracy laws, telling his followers not to depend on specific instructions.
He might tell them to divorce themselves from the group before they commit a violent act; to act individually or in small groups so that others in the movement could avoid criminal liability. This methodology creates a win-win situation for the extremist leader — the violent goals of the group are met without the legal consequences.
Actually, there’s no need to imagine this. Extremist group leaders produce a tremendous amount of literature, including training manuals on “leaderless resistance” and lone wolf terrorism techniques. These manuals have been around for years and now they’re even available online.
“Lone extremism” is not a phenomenon; it’s a technique, a ruse designed to subvert the criminal justice system. McVeigh did act as a lone extremist, as the FBI says. He was trained to do it this way. But his act of lone extremism was part of an ongoing conspiracy that continues to inspire violent attacks to this day, and to close our eyes to this conspiracy is to deny reality. It’s a matter of connecting the dots.
The second kind of new racist does not see themselves racist, but harbors racist attitudes and beliefs. I believe the large majority of new racists fall into the second category.
Dylan Matthews gives a good rundown on these attitudes in Donald Trump has every reason to keep white people thinking about race. In this excerpt, he reviews an experiment conducted by Princeton professor Tali Mendelberg and described in her book The Race Card:
She conducted a study with a random sample of Michigan voters where she showed fake television news stories about a gubernatorial race; in the stories, the conservative candidate was arguing that welfare recipients were an unfair burden. Some of the fake stories featured B-roll of black welfare recipients; others featured B-roll of white recipients. They were otherwise identical — but the stories with B-roll of black recipients led respondents to express significantly more hostile views toward government programs to assist black people. In fact, the effect on their expressed racial views was stronger than the effect on their expressed opinions on welfare.
But the cues can be subtler still, as other research points out. Nicholas Valentino, Vincent Hutchings, and Ismail White manipulated a 2000 campaign ad by George W. Bush that wasn’t even about welfare — it was about health care and taxes — by adding imagery of black people counting money, or a white nurse assisting a black mother, while a narrator says, “He’ll reform an unfair system that only provides health care for some.” In their control group, which saw no ads, measured levels of racial resentment didn’t do much to predict support for Bush versus Gore. Among people who saw the ad with racial cues, their preexisting level of racial resentment was hugely predictive of their presidential preference.
We should also consider people who are neither overtly nor attitudinally racist, but who are committed to policies that are racist in effect for ideological reasons. But this is a problem for another day.
Go Forth and Engage
New racism is a covert expression of racist attitudes identified by its family resemblance to a general racist psychology, the elements of which are fairly self-evident. The racist is constantly concerned about whatever terrible imagined things minorities are doing. It is easy to sense, because the underlying psychology is not subtle. It can be harder to establish – especially if you are looking fruitlessly for a smoking gun that isn’t there.
It is critical to be savvy about how the new racists operate. The New York Times ran an in-depth article on neo-Nazi organizations rebranding themselves for more palatable public consumption as “alt-right,” which said the following about Donald Trump’s victory:
“I’d been waiting to hear those words from a mainstream political candidate all my life,” said Gerald Martin, a retired public-school teacher from Dallas who grew up in a family that opposed desegregation.
He is a veteran of both the Army and a number of white supremacist movements, and name-drops the likes of William Luther Pierce III, a white supremacist who wrote “The Turner Diaries,” a novel about an underground band of white Americans who fight a liberty-crushing government controlled by Jews.
Before the Trump candidacy, Mr. Martin said, few in the alt-right were talking about politics; the movement was more about winning the battle of ideas. But once Mr. Trump began to talk, he said, “suddenly we’re all talking politics and we’re politically energized.”
“We’re almost intoxicated,” Mr. Martin continued. “We don’t have any power — but now we’re close enough to smell it.”
- In They are Slaughtering Us like Animals, Daniel Berehulak offers a blood-chilling account of the rash of extrajudicial killings rocking the Philippines under President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which has claimed thousands of lives of rumored street dealers in the last several months.
According to Duterte, who has boasted of his murderous policy and approvingly compared himself to Hitler, Trump assured him during a phone conversation a few days ago that he was handling the drug problem “the right way.” If that is not accurate, Trump has yet to contradict him. It’s hard to see how that doesn’t constitute a White House endorsement of overt mass murder.
From Berehulak’s article:
I witnessed bloody scenes just about everywhere imaginable — on the sidewalk, on train tracks, in front of a girls’ school, outside 7-Eleven stores and a McDonald’s restaurant, across bedroom mattresses and living-room sofas. I watched as a woman in red peeked at one of those grisly sites through fingers held over her eyes, at once trying to protect herself and permit herself one last glance at a man killed in the middle of a busy road.
Not far from where Tigas was killed, I found Michael Araja, shown in the first photo below, dead in front of a “sari sari,” what locals call the kiosks that sell basics in the slums. Neighbors told me that Mr. Araja, 29, had gone out to buy cigarettes and a drink for his wife, only to be shot dead by two men on a motorcycle, a tactic common enough to have earned its own nickname: riding in tandem.
In another neighborhood, Riverside, a bloodied Barbie doll lay next to the body of a 17-year-old girl who had been killed alongside her 21-year-old boyfriend.
“They are slaughtering us like animals,” said a bystander who was afraid to give his name.
- Trump announced Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as his pick to run the EPA, signaling his probable intention to dismantle President Obama’s clean energy policy and to withdraw from the Paris Accord, an international agreement aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions to below critical levels.
How bad is the choice? Well, a state attorney general is typically responsible for suing corporations to push compliance with EPA regulations, but Pruitt routinely took the other side, working with companies to push back against regulations intended to protect water, soil, and air. In 2014, the New York Times ran a story on Pruitt detailing how he wrote a letter to the EPA accusing them overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by gas well drilling. According to the article, “The three-page letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma’s biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered to him by Devon’s chief of lobbying.”
According to the Washington Post, on his LinkedIn page, Pruitt boasts of being “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”
“It can be said that establishing a universal and lasting peace constitutes not merely a part of the doctrine of right but rather the entire final end of the doctrine of right within the limits of reason alone.” – Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals
People rally to platforms that inspire them; that awaken their hearts to possibility, speak to their interests, and comfort their fears – so long as they are competently represented and communicated by plain speech. In Strategies for Opposing Trump’s Agenda, I stressed the importance of building such a platform rather than focusing excessively on criticism, as elections are better won, and more easily, by enthusiasm than by fear.
Today my purpose is to think through a few of the particulars of what such a platform might look like, and begin the longer process of sketching it out. I will focus on a vision of a just and equitable internationalism based on democratic norms, which strikes me as a much more desirable outcome than the chauvinistic nativism and unilateralism espoused by Mr. Trump and his ardent supporters.
Why have so many great minds of recent centuries, such as Goethe, Schiller, Kant, Humboldt, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein, and Martin Luther King – not just great thinkers, but great human beings – regarded openness and interchange with other nations of the world to be a general good?
It is not merely because of the enormous material benefits conferred by the easy, uninhibited flow of peoples, goods, and ideas across borders, great as that may be. But the deeper purpose is a commitment to the mutuality that dawns when many nations forge deep economic ties, and thereby bind themselves to a common destiny. In this we see a recognition of our common humanity reflected in the very fabric of our society, and that is something true and good.
Let us not forget that Europe, in the period of internationalism following World War II, has seen the longest uninterrupted peace in its recorded history. That is no mean achievement, and before we move to dismantle the political framework that has been an integral part of it, we must examine the problems that would move us to do so, and consider the best available solutions, with the utmost care.
In Europe and the United States, many people have become skeptical of globalization for two primary reasons. First, the great majority of persons have been systematically excluded from sharing in the benefits, and second, they increasingly feel out of control of the decisions being made by elites.
Attributing the economic woes of recent decades primarily to globalization is, I believe, a serious error, and retreating to a defensive posture of protectionism will not fix them. The underlying problem that I see is the failure of the global economic and political establishment to control exploding inequalities in wages and capital accumulations, and the failure to ground international cooperation in real democratic accountability. The elites who have managed globalization in the United States and Europe for the last few decades have been catastrophically indifferent to these effects – until now.
In the United States, as is well known, real wages have stagnated for decades across the board for every income group except the very wealthiest – the famous “1%,” or more accurately, the top .1% of income earners.
This economic stagnation has been exacerbated by the increased role of automation in displacing workers, and shocks such as the financial crisis of 2008. The situation is moderately better in Europe for income inequality, but wealth inequality remains extremely high.
Over the last 20 years, the EU has undergone a crisis of democratic legitimacy, because the mechanisms of economic union are strong, while the mechanisms of political union have remained weak. As the Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff sardonically noted, “Europe is like a couple that wasn’t sure they wanted to get married, so they decided to just open a joint checking account and see how things went.”
In good times, the lack of strong democratic structures for establishing a legitimate, deliberated consensus among member states could be tolerated, but when Brussels, led by Germany and France, pushed southern states hard to adopt punishing austerity regimes as a condition for debt reduction, political tensions regarding the sovereign rights of member states have rightly exploded.
An analogous but not identical problem exists in the United States, where economic inequality is the outcome of policy decisions that are overwhelmingly monopolized by wealthy elites. In a much-cited 2014 study, for example, Gilens and Page found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
In the span of this blog post I wish only to achieve a cursory sketch of the problem, which I believe is deeply rooted in the crisis of democratic legitimacy and economic inequality, and to offer my thumbnail sketch of the solution, which consists, in essence, of working cooperatively toward a more perfect international union, in which conflict and trade can be mediated by nonviolent procedures and deliberation, enshrined in a basic concept of fundamental, universal human rights.
That requires progressive tax policies, reformed domestic and international political mechanisms, including the repeal of Citizens United and the establishment of a European constitutional congress with real power and real accountability to member-states, and working toward the establishment of a global tax on capital as a way – probably the only way – of combating the strategies commonly used by global corporations and wealthy individuals to circumvent their tax obligations.
I will look in greater detail at all of these proposals in future posts.
- I’ve been writing of the urgent need for the left to formulate a positive vision of globalization – Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes a good case in Why Canada opts for openness in The Economist.
- Scientific American looks at the leading role California may play in a cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions reductions in Climate Action May Be Boosted by California’s Democratic Supermajority.
- Die Zeit looks at a growing horrifying trend of violence against immigrants, especially arson attacks against refugee dwellings, in Germany in Flames.
- In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns: Have you heard about this #pizzagate business? Apparently the crazy is coming out in full force. Made-up stories accuse a Washington-area pizza parlor of running a child abuse parlor in their back room for Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. A barrage of threats and obscene messages flood in. The son of Trump’s national security advisor nominee retweets the story, saying “it’s for the skeptics to disprove.” Then, a gunman shows up with an assault weapon and fires a few shots, later telling police he came to “self-investigate.” The New York Times covers it here.
- Buzzfeed ran an analysis of news sources Trump retweets in Here’s Where Donald Trump Gets His News. Naturally Fox and Breitbart are at the top – I was amused to see lyingcrookedhillary.com also made the top twenty or so.
Today in “It’s Not All Bad News”:
From the New York Times, Federal Officials to Explore Different Route for Dakota Pipeline:
Federal officials announced on Sunday that they would not approve permits for construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline beneath a dammed section of the Missouri River that tribes say sits near sacred burial sites.
The decision is a victory for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of protesters camped near the construction site who have opposed the project because they said would it threaten a water source and cultural sites. Federal officials had given the protesters until tomorrow to leave a campsite near the construction site.
European Union leaders have been welcoming the result, which comes amid fears of populism undermining established parties.
European Council President Donald Tusk conveyed “wholehearted congratulations” while Germany’s Social Democrat Vice-Chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, called the result “a clear victory for reason against right-wing populism”.