Orwell in 1946 explains why Trump gets so angry when reporters remind him what he said: A totalitarian ruler “has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. … Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, …”
In “The Prevention of Literature,” Orwell speaks of “a liberal historian who believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course.”
However, Orwell continues,
From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a re-evaluation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but is clearly likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth.
Note that the URL is in Russia!
[https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/prevention/english/e_plit]
Part I: “Trump's stonewalling of Congress is a Constitutional crisis”
On April 25, 2019, Julian Zelizer wrote:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is mad as hell. Her spokeswoman released a statement saying: "President Trump and his Administration are engaged in unprecedented stonewalling and once again using the legal system to conceal every area of his life as well as his wrongdoing and improprieties from the American people."
We are getting deeper and deeper into a constitutional crisis.
The president* is “trying to act in imperial fashion”:
Many presidents have attempted to use this power [executive privilege] under specific circumstances with specific hearings. But Trump is making a much bolder claim. The president is being very straightforward. He will defy all subpoenas because he does not believe the investigations are legitimate. His claim has nothing to do with national security. It isn't even being sold as an effort to protect the ability of his advisers to speak freely. He just doesn't agree to participate, claiming that the Democrats are being driven by partisanship. The President will flex his executive muscle because he believes he can. He is daring anyone to stop him.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has driven much of his presidency, and the guiding philosophy that pops up in the second part of special counsel Robert Mueller's report. Not surprisingly, the way that he is handling the post-report period, with grandiose claims of presidential authority and aggressive postures toward the legislative branches, are confirming the worst impressions to come out of Mueller's investigation. This is the ultimate example of a president trying to act in imperial fashion.
How far will the president* go?: “The President keeps forcing the nation's hand in considering how far it is willing to let a president go before finally saying that enough is enough.”
-*--
Constitutional Crisis, Part II: By Trump’s standard, “Congress could never investigate anything.”
Lee Moran:
Mueller’s report, released with redactions last week, contained a number
of damning revelations about the president. Trump has falsely claimed
it totally exonerated him.
“If that were the standard, then
Congress could never investigate anything,” the Post wrote. “Mr. Trump’s
Republican colleagues must remember the battles they fought with
President Barack Obama over transparency only a few years ago when they
ran the House.
The editorial board also argued that Trump’s “own words” proved he was motivated more “by concealing anything that might land him in political jeopardy” than by “any specific concern about protecting presidential decision-making or some other crucial executive-branch function.”
-*--
Constitutional Crisis, Part III, “Blatant … obstruction of the lawful processes of a coequal branch of government.”
Dylan Scott wrote:
That’s about as blatant an obstruction of the lawful processes of a coequal branch of government as I’ve ever seen,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional scholar, told the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday.
From [Matthew] Yglesias:
Trump’s statements about NATO and the leak of Democratic National Committee emails likely pilfered by Russians have raised questions about Trump’s financial relationships with oligarchs tied to the Russian government. Tax disclosure would let us see how Trump’s businesses work — how successful he really is and how much that success hinges on investments from foreign actors who may have a more nefarious agenda than real estate development.
“Trump has set a culture of secrecy that rivals Richard Nixon. He won’t release his financial records. He has been investigated for obstructing justice by Robert Mueller. Now he doesn’t want administration officials testifying in Congress, one of the most routine and sacrosanct examples of the country’s systems of checks and balances. In court, Trump’s lawyers have made a sweeping case to curtail Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.”
In conclusion:
1. Stonewalling Congress
2. “Congress could never investigate anything.”
3. “Blatant … obstruction of the lawful processes of a coequal branch of government.”
4. Trump is 1. Nullifying Congress, 2. Acting as judge in his own behalf, and 3. Tanking the Constitution, violating the oath to “protect and defend” it. He is behaving in a dictatorial fashion.
