Does Truth Matter?

Every American should be staggered by Adam Schiff's closing argument in Donald Trump's impeachment trial.  In his momentous and immortal speech, he states with brimming emotion, "If the truth doesn't matter, we're lost."  This is an almost unreckonable sentence.  Here is the chief House Impeachment Manager, standing before the Senate to make a cataclysmic claim.  The podium is physically small and yet the stance invites global judgement. 

Schiff is certain that his side's case is beyond reasonable doubt.  The president withheld crucial aid to pressure Ukraine.  Why?  Because he wanted our NATO ally to announce an investigation of Joe Biden, a political rival.  To smear him.  Trump, in other words, employed his vast executive power to monkey wrench the cogs of our sacrosanct electoral process.

Sadly, Schiff is correct.  Not only in rhetoric, but in substance.   The implication is beyond dire.  If Trump eludes congressional oversight, he escapes our failsafe of checks and balances.  He achieves the mantle of dictator, one who also happens to be the most powerful man in the world.

It's easy to balk at such an enormous conclusion.  Politicians will be politicians.  And yet this impeachment trial, only the third in the history of the United States, is extraordinary even among its peers.  Bill Clinton, the last president impeached, committed a sex act.  Andrew Johnson, right after the Civil War, fought to re-establish slavery despite the law.  But Trump is the first to seek out foreign aid to subvert the Constitution, something he swore an oath to protect.   

Even a casual look at Trump's behavior shows something frightening:  a rejection of the obvious for the fruits of the devious.  If Trump had wanted a serious investigation of Biden, why not ask the CIA, instead of Ukraine?  One might further inquire why the Republicans, who controlled Congress for the first two years of Trump's presidency, showed nary a spark of interest in Biden during that time.

When confronted with the above point, both the president and the GOP sidestep without agility. Indeed, clumsy is inevitable when you ignore every known fact to firebreathe conspiratorial claims--claims that mesh with Russian propaganda--and that lack even a scintilla of merit. 

For instance, US intelligence services have repeated stated that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections.  But both Trump and the GOP continue to weave webs around Ukraine.

Even more damning is what could be called "The Coincidence Con."  According to Trump's defenders, it is mere coincidence that Biden was the person singled out by our president for investigation.  The timing, they adamantly protest, is just a fluke of chance.  Trump's goal was merely to investigate corruption.  It had nothing to do with getting votes.  Nothing at all.

Adding another layer of absurdity to this response, Trump does not express any interest in corruption in the transcript where he talks to the Ukrainian president.  The word doesn't appear at all.  Trump does, however, ask for a "favor" and then goes on to push for an investigation of Biden.

The above are just specks of frost on the tip of a deep iceberg.  Throughout the procedures of the hearing and the trial, Trump's defenders have flouted logic and eschewed dignity to ballyhoo the specious and the fallacious   Some Senate Republicans have outrightly revealed that they have no inclination to be impartial. 

We know that, under established dictatorships, minions knuckle under at the threat of jail or worse.  Whatever the king or queen decrees.  Off with their heads.  But what to say about the Republican party in this cancerous moment for our country?  Why do they follow Trump when all reasonable roads lead to condemnation? 

However mysterious the failure of the GOP, while we flounder as a bastion of freedom, it shall go down in world history as a singular failure.  It presents us with a most awful scourge, a tragedy that tips a telecommunicated planet toward darkness, an indelible  exemplar of the most despicable in human beings.  

==

Essay: Political Abuse

Political abuse involves a tyrannous leader.  It has a lot in common with domestic abuse.  In both contexts, those disengaged from the cruel dynamic have trouble understanding the deeper level of what's really going on. 

The first reaction is to express outrage and exasperation for the abuse, which can crystallize into ignorant questions like, "Why isn't the abuser in jail?" or "Why doesn't the victim just leave?" 

Ending abuse isn't like showing someone how to solve a math problem.  Abusive relationships solidify over time.  They involve an insidious mind control both strategic and tactical.  It is a common misconception that the inflictor is  'just someone who has an anger problem' or otherwise not intending to inflict harm.  

Indeed, this appearance can be part of the manipulation.

Mental disorders may well present in an abuser.  But what's going on is something else entirely:  an observant, calculative, continuous process that moves in stages and cycles (like the honeymoon stage).  A house of abuse is built with a devious and sturdy carpentry.  It is malign, premeditated, and unrepentant.  

If you ask counselors at any domestic violence agency, they will tell you eye-opening stories.   An abuser can turn in seconds from ranting and raving at the victim to looking calm and polite to police.  The abuser is relentless.  He relentlessly blames others, especially the victim, spinning deceptive yet persuasive stories.  If mandated for anger management, he often employs that opportunity to share and improve his techniques with other perpetrators.

(I am using male pronouns here because in the very large majority of cases, a man is the abuser).

Make no mistake, then.  You're dealing with a cultivated dynamic, a pattern coordinated to achieve dictatorial control.

There are many layers and techniques involved.  Here's the iconic power and control 'wheel' used by shelters for education and outreach:

https://www.thehotline.org/identify-abuse/power-and-control/

What about the government equivalent of domestic abuse?

The analogy is a would-be tyrant or fascist dictator who lusts for total power without conscience, or who is willing to crush their conscience for the malevolent goal. The person won't succeed without a certain aptitude and skill set.  The trust and faith of their followers is cultivated in stages; and that trust is then exploited to isolate them further from the facts.  This is similar to how a domestic abuser isolates the victim from her friends (she also is mind-gamed to blame herself and not the abuser).

This conspiratorial wooing in the would-be tyrant creates a tigher and tigher bond, until a kind of singularity event occurs:  the constituency becomes cultish, willing to sacrifice their dignity, freedom, health and money for the 'great leader' rather than question.  

At this point, they've bought into the loyalty-test framework, one that requires them to accept a false view of reality to retain their leader's approval.   As part of the loyalty test, the false reality includes obvious untruths or 'big lies.'  

Donald Trump's Big Lie is that the last election was stolen from him.

Abusers/tyrants are always looking to identify and latch onto insecurity and weakness.  If a victim has a certain fear, the abuser strives to become the sole source of comfort and understanding--while at the same time stoking that fear. 

In a political context, the abuse is similar to the domestic context:  intimidation and threats that involve bluster, blame, swagger and vicious insults attacks to get followers in line, or cow opposition.  Physical threats are marshalled, too, by identifying someone as 'bad'.  This can result in death threats through social media from across the country.  

The tyrant, engaging in plausible deniability, never has to threaten harm specifically, only slap a target with a 'bad' label.  Typical labels are things like "traitor" and "RINO" (Republican in name only); but also 'oppoganda' words like "feminist," "elite," and "liberal."

Acting in this way, the tyrant sends the same message as the abuser:   "I alone control the power.   I can destroy you completely." 

Here are some typical strategies.

The abusive leader (or abuser) always blames others, when they are the one clearly at fault.  Others are the hateful and prejudice ones, not the leader, even though this very act of lying spreads prejudice and hate. 

To demonstrate the sophistication of this kind of trick, consider this:  an abuser will take blame for something they didn't do.  This can cause confusion, baffle investigations, or simply make the abuser look noble in the eyes of followers or outsiders.

Flipping is common.  Flipping is a technique that focuses on making the victims blame themselves.  As in domestic abuse, the idea is to lower the self-esteem of the followers until it is so low they adopt a 'save me' mentality.

Another tool is 'Strategic instability.'   The leader/abuser's behavior can look erratic, spontaneous, or outright crazy.  One thing this does is keep the victims on edge and focused on the abuser (who likes the attention and playing puppeteer).  

Maybe the leader's behavior is, in fact, crazy.  Donald Trump is a diagnosed malignant narcissist.  But it also meshes with a larger strategy, creating useful crises, mudding the calm waters of objectivity, and in effect reminding followers of the need for continuous servitude and loyalty, no matter how uncomfortable it might make them; and the only way to escape that discomfort is blind faith in the abuser.

==========