Report typos and corrections to: corrections@rawstory.com.
Like this article ? Text `Support` to 50123 to donate.
The 'very worst forms of gutter Trumpism' on full display in Ohio’s GOP Senate primary: columnist
January 28, 2022
The battle to be the GOP nominee for the Ohio Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has descended into the "very worst forms of gutter Trumpism" according to a new analysis published by The Washington Post.
"Here’s an unsettling thought: In GOP primaries, declaring unshakable fealty to the mythology that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is becoming a bedrock condition of political survival," Greg Sargent wrote. "That’s the takeaway from the latest news out of the Senate primary in Ohio, where J.D. Vance is facing former state treasurer Josh Mandel and several other candidates. The race has featured a kind of loyalty competition, in which displays of fealty to Trump’s 2020 lies, pushed relentlessly by Mandel, have kept escalating to comic levels of groveling."
Jane Timken, the former chair of the Ohio Republican Party, is also seeking the GOP nomination. But Sargent said the Mandel vs. Vance battle illustrates "how effortlessly those populist tendencies feed into the very worst forms of gutter Trumpism."
"On Thursday night, Mandel upped the ante on the Trump-worship again. At a candidate forum, Mandel declared: 'I believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump.' Mandel infused the word 'stolen' (as well as Trump’s middle initial) with grandly inflated umbrage, suggesting he has carefully rehearsed this display," Sargent wrote. "Mandel also described the coronavirus as a 'bioweapon manufactured by the Chinese Communist Party,' and even declared this had been created to punish Trump for confronting China."
He explained Vance has been "atoning" after his harsh criticism of Donald Trump.
"But you cannot listen to Vance talk about Trump, our elections and our institutions without marveling at how easily elements of this populism, in the hands of someone like Vance, bleed into the very worst pathologies that Trumpism has to offer," he wrote. "At this point, even the very worst of this stuff is seen as so unremarkable that it barely merits national media attention anymore. That’s too bad, because this is coming at exactly the moment that it’s growing more widespread — and dangerous."
While Mandel, Timken, and Vance compete for the GOP nomination, the battle to be the Democratic Party nominee is between Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau senior advisor Morgan Harper.
Read the full report.
Hey Josh. I didn\u2019t call Ohioans racist, I called you racist. Have a nice day.— Morgan Harper (@Morgan Harper) 1643386108
CONTINUE READING
Show less
This warning from Patrick Henry has become disturbingly relevant in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection
January 28, 2022
On January 6, 2021, and again on its anniversary, rioters and their defenders invoked an almost mythological belief in “1776” and the most famous words of Patrick Henry – “give me liberty or give me death.” Henry’s speech is a favorite of the modern Tea Party and those who wish to deny federal authority or to ignore laws with which they disagree.
This, though, is to misunderstand Henry. His “liberty or death” speech was a response to British efforts to tax Americans unrepresented in Parliament and undermine the power of elected assemblies. His understanding of democracy is much more clearly shown in his opposition to ratification of the U.S. Constitution and then, later, his defense of the Constitution that he had opposed.
In 1788, Henry became the leading antifederalist, contesting ratification of the new Constitution. He warned that the federal government would become too powerful, too distant from the people. The presidency “squints to monarchy.” Henry almost defeated ratification in Virginia, but he lost. The Constitution was ratified.
When other antifederalists, led by George Mason, met to plan continued opposition to the Constitution’s implementation, Henry objected. He had opposed ratification “in the proper place – and with all the powers he possessed,” but having lost, it was time to “give it fair play.” Henry retired, refusing appointments as a Supreme Court justice, secretary of state, ambassador to France or Spain.
The story, though, does not end there. Within a decade, Henry was declared a prophet as the federal government’s power soared. In 1798, the Alien & Sedition Acts were adopted, effectively making it illegal even to criticize Congress or the president.
Many American rose in opposition, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Some advocated violent obstruction of federal authority. Kentucky, at Jefferson’s urging, declared the federal laws could not be enforced in Kentucky; they were “nullified.” Virginia, under Madison’s guidance, adopted resolutions only somewhat less revolutionary. The prospect of individual states disagreeing on which federal laws were valid and enforceable in their state raised the specter of interstate conflict, possibly civil war. Reports circulated of states arming for conflict with the federal government.
George Washington begged Henry to set aside his opposition to ratification and come out of retirement. Henry, recognizing that the nation was at risk, agreed: “I should be unworthy the character of a republican or an honest man if I withheld my best & most zealous efforts, because I opposed the Constitution….”
Patrick Henry – the leading antifederalist, the man who warned that the Constitution would create a government too powerful and distant from the people that would interfere with their rights – came out of retirement to defend the Constitution that he had opposed.
Henry’s final political speech, at Charlotte Courthouse in March 1799, speaks powerfully to the nature of democracy. He reminded the gathered throng that he opposed ratification. “He had seen with regret the unlimited power over the purse and sword consigned to the General government,” but the people ratified and, even for those who had opposed, “it was now necessary to submit to the constitutional exercise of that Power.”
The Alien & Sedition Acts were “odious & tyrannical,” but state interference with federal laws was unjustified and unconstitutional. The solution was the ballot box: “it belonged to the people who held the reins over the head of Congress, and to them alone....” The people’s power was in their votes.
Henry recognized that if tyranny “cannot be otherwise redressed,” people could revolt. But he warned, if forced to that extremity, “You can never exchange the present government but for a monarchy.” If Americans cannot live within our Constitution and laws, the republic fails. Despotism will result.
Henry won his election – Henry always won his election – but died before he could take office. But heeding his warning, the nation pulled back from the brink. The idea of nullification was swept aside (unfortunately to be resurrected in the run-up to the Civil War). Jefferson was elected president, but in a distinctly Henryesque manner: His supporters went to the ballot box and insisted upon change. Jefferson learned his lesson, in his first inaugural address stressing the “sacred principle that … the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail.”
The legacy of the election of 1800 is often given as the peaceful transfer of power between opposing parties, but it almost did not happen. Patrick Henry, the leading antifederalist, came out of retirement to remind the people that in a democracy they are called to respect the majority decision, even when they disagree with it. That essential legacy was respected in America as a foundation of our nation for 220 years.
Dr. John Ragosta (@johnragosta or johnaragosta.com), a fellow at Virginia Humanities, is finishing a new book on Patrick Henry’s defense of democracy. His previous works include Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Legacy, America’s Creed (UVA, 2015). Tweets @johnragosta.
This article was originally published at History News Network
CONTINUE READING
Show less
French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on the need for "de-escalation" in a phone call Friday about the tensions between Moscow and Kyiv after Russia deployed thousands of soldiers near its borders with the smaller former Soviet country. Macron is later scheduled to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Follow our live coverage below.
16:35 Paris time: Macron and Putin agree on need for ‘de-escalation’ in Ukraine crisis
Macron and Putin agreed on the need for a "de-escalation" in the Ukraine crisis during a call on Friday, with the Russian president saying he had "no offensive plans", an aide to Macron said.
The call "enabled us to agree on the need for a de-escalation," the aide said during a briefing with journalists, adding: "President Putin expressed no offensive plans and said he wanted to continue the talks with France and our allies.
15:49 Paris time: Biden, EU’s von der Leyen pledge to arrange alternative natural gas sources amid standoff with Russia
The United States and European Union said Friday they are working together to find alternative supplies of natural gas to protect the EU in case key energy supplier Russia retaliates against sanctions.
US President Joe Biden and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said they are "working jointly towards continued, sufficient, and timely supply of natural gas to the EU from diverse sources across the globe to avoid supply shocks, including those that could result from a further Russian invasion of Ukraine”.
14:58 Paris time: Danish fighter jets arrive in Lithuania amid concern over Russian troops in Belarus
Four Danish F-16 fighter jets arrived in Lithuania after the country appealed for a greater NATO presence because of Russia's military build-up around Ukraine, officials said on Friday.
Denmark's decision to send the jets "comes at just the right time", Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said at a ceremony at the Baltic state's northern air base in Siauliai.
The fighter planes will patrol Lithuanian air space until April 1 along with four Polish fighters that have been stationed there since December 1. Several exercises are planned.
The Baltic states feel threatened amid the current tensions between Russia and the West, with Moscow demanding that NATO scrap its "Enhanced Forward Presence" in the Baltics and Poland.
"This is an extremely worrying time not just for Lithuania but for all the NATO allies," Nauseda said.
Lithuania is particularly concerned by Russian troop movements in neighbouring Belarus.
The forces there "are many more than during the Zapad military exercises" between Russia and Belarus last year, Lithuanian Defence Minister Arvydas Anusauskas said.
14:33 Paris time: US, NATO response to Russia’s security proposals don’t address main concerns, Putin tells Macron
Russian President Putin told his French counterpart Macron that the responses from the United States and NATO to Russian security proposals did not address Moscow's main concerns, according to a Friday statement from the Kremlin,
"The US and NATO responses did not take into account Russia's fundamental concerns including preventing NATO's expansion and refusing to deploy strike weapons systems near Russia's borders," Putin told Macron, according to a readout of their call published by the Kremlin.
Russia earlier sent its strongest signal so far that it is willing to engage with US security proposals and reiterated that it does not want war over Ukraine. The Kremlin said Putin would closely study the proposals and then decide on further action.
The Kremlin also said that Putin and Macron agreed to continue dialogue on a range of issues concerning European security, the TASS news agency reported.
13:40 Paris time: After Putin, Macron to speak with Ukraine’s Zelensky
French President Macron spoke for more than an hour on the phone with his Russian counterpart Putin, but no details have yet emerged from that conversation.
Later tonight, at 7pm Paris time, Macron is scheduled to speak with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
13:08 Paris time: Why the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has become a bargaining chip
Running from Russia’s Baltic coast to northeastern Germany, the 1,200-kilometre (745-mile) underwater pipeline has the capacity to send 55 billion cubic metres of gas per year from Russia to Europe and would increase the continent’s access to relatively cheap natural gas.
The reason it is controversial is because it bypasses Ukraine’s pipeline infrastructure, depriving the country of around a billion euros annually in gas transit fees and, Kiev fears, removing a key check on potential Russian aggression. In past disputes with Russia, Ukraine has had its gas supply cut off several times.
11:52 Paris time: Lithuania and Germany in talks on more troops in Lithuania
Lithuania and Germany are in talks to increase German military presence in Lithuania “in light of current events”, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said on Friday.
“We are talking about possibilities to expand, increase the German and the Enhanced Forward Presence forces in Lithuania, as we need to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO in light of the current events.”
11:35 Paris time: Russian military build-up would allow an invasion ‘with little warning’
US Ambassador to Moscow John Sullivan told an online briefing that the size of the Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s borders would allow an invasion with little warning.
He also warned that economic sanctions on Russia would be just one part of the West’s response if the Russian military were to invade Ukraine. Other measures would include export controls and greater defence of allies in Europe and prevent the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany from operating.
11:40 Paris time: Macron to speak with Putin
French President Emmanuel Macron was due to speak by phone with Putin on Friday.
“It is up to Vladimir Putin to say if he wants consultations or confrontation,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told RTL radio, asking whether the Russian leader wanted to be a “destabilising power” or would seek de-escalation.
9:30 Paris time: ‘War only possible if Belarus or Russia are attacked,’ says Lukashenko
In a speech in parliament this morning, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko said his country has no interest in war, and that a conflict would only break out if his country, or its close ally Russia were attacked directly.
The West is currently on edge as Minsk and Moscow plan to hold joint military drills in Belarus, which flanks Ukraine’s northern border. Russia has already deployed thousands of soldiers along Ukraine’s eastern border.
9:20 Paris time: Russia says Moscow ‘does not want war with Ukraine’
“If it depends on Russia, then there will be no war. We don’t want wars. But we also won’t allow our interests to be rudely trampled, to be ignored,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian radio stations in a Friday interview.
(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS and AFP)
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2022 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email corrections@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}