Mediaboss Marketing

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: "Deportee," this version sung by Joan Baez. The song was written by Woody Guthrie about a crash that killed 32 people, most of them migrant farmworkers who were being deported from California to Mexico. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

JUAN GONZLEZ: President Donald Trump is slated to give his first presidential address to Congress today. Democratic lawmakers have begun giving their tickets away to immigrants as a protest against Trumps push to increase deportations and to block residents from some Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Last week, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wants to, quote, "take the shackles off" of the nations immigration agents.

PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: The president wanted to take the shackles off individuals in these agencies and say, "You have a mission. There are laws that need to be followed. You should do your mission and follow the law."

AMY GOODMAN: Last Thursday, President Trump called his deportation plans a military operation during a meeting with manufacturing CEOs.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You see whats happening at the border. All of a sudden, for the first time, were getting gang members out. Were getting drug lords out. Were getting really bad dudes out of this country and at a rate that nobodys ever seen before. And theyre the bad ones. And its a military operation, because what has been allowed to come into our country, when you see gang violence that youve read about like never before and all of the things, much of that is people that are here illegally. And theyre rough, and theyre tough, but theyre not tough like our people. So were getting them out.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, this is not the first time people of Mexican descent have been demonized, accused of stealing jobs, and forced to leave the country. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, more than a million people residing in the United States were deported to Mexico. Some estimate as much as 60 percent of them were U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2003, then-California state Senator Joe Dunn held hearings in Sacramento, where survivors gave testimony about what happened to them during the forced expulsions, which the government called repatriations. This is Senator Dunn stressing the importance of the hearing.

SEN. JOE DUNN: The idea from which this nation was born was the promise to all of liberty and justice. Today we examine a tragic part of American history where we betrayed the justice part of that promise, and a betrayal that affected a staggering number of individuals. By some estimates, almost 2 million individuals were deported from the United States in the 1930s. Some estimate that almost 60 percent of those that were deported were United States citizens. And they were deported for but one reason: They just happened to be of Mexican descent.

AMY GOODMAN: The state of California went on to issue a formal apology for its role in the expulsions and built a memorial in downtown Los Angeles to commemorate the victims. But many fear that history is now on the verge or repeating itself already.

For more, were going to Los Angeles, California, where were joined by the preeminent scholar on this often overlooked chapter of American history: Francisco Balderrama, professor of American history and Chicano studies at California State University, Los Angeles. Hes the co-author of the book Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s.

Professor Balderrama, thank you so much for joining us. I think, for many, especially young people, but I am sure many more, do not know this chapter of American history. Can you lay it out for us, what actually happened?

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Youre right that its largely not knownand thats in the larger American society, the Mexican nation, as well as in the Mexican community itselfthat this occurred during the Great Depression, a period of vast unemployment and underemployment, that at least over a millionJoe Dunn thinks in terms of maybe almost 2 millionindividuals, Mexican nationals and American citizens of Mexican descent, were swept up and expelled out of this country. And it covered the entire United States. From Alabama and Mississippi to Alaska, from Los Angeles to New York, this mass expulsion occurred, and of a population that included Mexican nationals, many of them that had lived in this country 20, 30 years, but increasingly important is the 60 percent or more of American citizens of Mexican descent. In other words, what occurred here was unconstitutional deportation.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, Professor Balderrama, Im wondering if you could talk also about the role of the press at that time in stirring up anti-immigrant fervor, because this began during the Hoover administration and then moved on into the Roosevelt administration. What was the role of the press, as well?

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Well, the role of the press is significant, but it is also reflecting the larger American society at this time, as well. The key notion that the press puts forward is that a Mexican is a Mexican. There is no distinction in terms of residents in this countryas I mentioned earlier, many of them had lived in this country 20, 25 years, most of them were documented, most of them had papersand that their children that were born in this country were U.S. citizens. No distinctions made. And that is accepted in this society and serves as a way of looking at the population, that even though they had contributed during better times to the economic prosperity of the United States, that now thats not recognized. They are the other, so to speak.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Ignacio Pia, who lived in rural Idaho when sheriffs came to his house and took everybody in custody in the summer of 1931. His parents had lived in the United States for some 25 years. He was about to enter first grade. Were taking this from a film called A Forgotten Injustice. A now-elderly Pia describes what happened that day.

IGNACIO PIA: [translated] My mother was cooking and hand-making flour tortillas. I remember we were eating them with melted butter. Then, all of a sudden, they arrived. They pointed their guns at us. One officer was standing outside. The other one was inside. And they said, "Come on, lets go. Come on." And my mother would ask, "Where?" "No questions. Come on. Out!"

They took us to the fields where my father was working. They grabbed him, too, and then they filled up the other car with Mexicans that were working there, as well.

In Pocatello, Idaho, they put us in jail. We were in jail for six or seven days. I was six years old. And as a kid, I could not understand why we were in jail if we were not criminals. My father was in one cell, and my mother was in another one with me, my three sisters and my two brothers. But I could not understand why.

Even when we were in the train on our way to El Paso, Texas, I wondered, "Where is this train going? Whats going to happen with us?" There were about five cars with lots of Mexicans, lots of families. We were so young, but I remember looking around at the people. They looked so sad, because many were suffering the same things we were facing. They were kicked out, too.

They did it so we couldnt come back, even the ones that were born here, like us. They didnt let us take anything with us, not even our birth certificates.

AMY GOODMAN: "Not even our birth certificates." That was Ignacio Pia. Professor Balderrama, you knew Ignacio Pia. Can you tell us more about this story and how typical it was?

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Well, Mr. Pia called me after we had the hearings in Sacramento. We conducted extensive interviews. And getting to meet his family, his son shared with me that he no longer has the nightmares, that this man was experiencing well into his eighties, because he was able to share his story with us. Mr. Pia, whos recently deceased, became an activist in regards of the Apology Act and the erection of the memorial here in Los Angeles. And I think it shows that an individual that suffered with this throughout his life, that even had nightmares as a senior citizen about that, became an activist and shared that story multiple times, to the press, to the television, on and on, with a conviction that, as many of the other survivors, that this not happen to anybody else. When he said that, and the other survivors, not to happen to anybody else, he just doesnt mean people of Mexican descent or Latino descent. Rather, what hes saying is anybody else, and especially those that are American citizens. It shouldnt happen. We should not have unconstitutional deportation.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Professor Balderrama, youve specialized in the mass deportations of the 1930s. But that was not the last of these deportations, right? In the 1950s, there was Operation Wetback under the Eisenhower administration. Then, of course, during the Bush years and into the Obama years, there were the mass deportations that occurred. It seems every time there is an economic crisis in the United States, the first reflex is to start mass deportations of "the other," as this society begins to declare them.

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Exactly, Juan. Youre right on target with that, that we do have these cycles. What behooves American society to understand is that this early period that I have studied, the early 20th century and the Great Depression, which is the most severe economic crisis of the 20th and the 21st century, is the fact that at that time developed this ideology, this set of beliefs, this way of thinking of the Mexican, Latino population, that somehow they are not part of our society, that they arethat many of them are criminals, many of them are here to be on welfare, that somehow, someway, they cannot become part of our society. And I think what is especially important to keep in mind for your listeners is that as we experience the nightmare of today, the crisis of today, which is different, that same ideology, that same way of thinking, is still in action today.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go, Professor Balderrama, to your late co-author, Raymond Rodrguez. This is Rodrguez speaking at the 2003 Select Committee on Citizen Participation at the California state Senate.

RAYMOND RODRGUEZ: My dad left in 1936, when I was 10. I never saw my dad again. How is anybody going to compensate me for that loss?

AMY GOODMAN: That was Raymond Rodrguez, your co-author. Can you tell us about him and his familys experience? And also, why just Mexicans? Was it only Mexicans?

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Well

AMY GOODMAN: Because 60 percent of them perhaps were American.

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Raymond Rodrguez was mywas mynot only my colleague. Raymond Rodrguez was a very, very dear friend. We spoke with one voice when we wrote Decade of Betrayal. And in countless venues, we spoke with one voice in terms of this particular issue. I had known Ray for some 20 years at the time that we completed the first edition of Decade of Betrayal. And at that moment, I learned that his father had been a repatriot, at that moment when the book was finished and we were submitting it to the publisher. I knew that he had grown up with a single parent, with a mother only, but I didnt know what had happened to his father. So, in a lot of ways, my co-author, my treasured friend, his work, together, his scholarship, as well as his activism, was trying to uncover that history, his own family history.

And we see that thread among others, as well, many other individuals who, in understanding this issue from reading Decade of Betrayal, from hearing your radio program, from looking at this and understanding this, have developed a larger understanding. What we have seen happen is that this private history has now become a public history. And many people, as they deal with this, trying to become a public history, that even though Ray, inthe excerpt that you just played was the very first time that publicly he announced that his father had been a repatriot, that what had happened had divided his family. His mother and his siblings stayed here in the United States, and his father returned to Mexico, and he never saw his father again.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Professor Balderrama, this whole issue of repatriation, the United States government labeled it "repatriation" because it claimed that the people were voluntarily agreeing to go back to their home country. But as you know, as youve reported, and as happens right here in the United States now, people are picked up, locked up and then told, "If you dont want to stay locked up, then you agree to beto self-deport, to, in essence, leave the country and go back to your home country." So its really a choice of staying in jail or having a chance possibly to come back legally at some other time.

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Juan, youre right about that. But looking at it in the context of the 1930s is that "repatriation" was a cover-up word, because at that time, which marks the '30s different than today, is that the big source of this expulsion is on the local level. It's in the cities and counties that took upon themselves to say to their communities, "There is enough jobs for real Americans, if we can get rid of these other people." So, L.A. County and other counties throughout the nation then pressured Mexican families to leave, even though Mexicans, from my research, never were a large percentage of those that were on welfare. But it played to the notion or the idea that Mexicans were on welfare. Here in L.A. County, they began to call their actions "deportation." And the legal counsel says, "No, you cant do that. Only the federal government can do that." And thats where the word "repatriation" is born, so to speak, to be used in that context to cover it up, to make it look clean, make it look like its voluntary. But at the same time, you have public raids. At the same time, you have the press talking about unwanted Mexican Americans. All of these actions are very coercive.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Professor Balderrama, your response to whats happening today, and the parallels that you see and the ways you can see avoiding history repeating itself?

FRANCISCO BALDERRAMA: Well, obviously, this is a nightmare. Obviously, the legacy of this is in the Mexican community. Even before this happened, I know many senior citizens who would carry around their papers, their documentation, whatever they had, in fear that they might get caught up in a sweep. Now, obviously, those same feelings are being reported daily in the press about people staying home, people even fearful to go out and buy groceries. So that has returned.

But what I think marks the difference between the past and today is, the simple fact is that we have in the Mexican community different groupsthe Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and Education Fund, MALDEF, other groupsand, more importantly, the different across ethnic, progressive groups together, whether they be Japanese-American, whether they be Jewish American, the various other groups who have come together and are very conscious of what is happening and are dedicated to those actions of activism to stop this, whats occurring.

AMY GOODMAN: Francisco Balderrama, we want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of American history and Chicano studies at California State University, Los Angeles, co-author of Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s. Well link to that book, as well as yours, Juan, Harvest of Empire, the whole story thatin which you include this, as well.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the son of Muhammad Ali and his mother join us. Why were they stopped, American citizens, when they came back into this country? Stay with us.

Read more:
"Decade of Betrayal": How the US Expelled Over a Half Million US Citizens to Mexico in 1930s - Democracy Now!

Mainstream media faced criticism from all sides of the political divide for their coverage of the election campaign. President Donald Trumps surprising victory led to accusations that journalists on the coasts are out of touch with the rest of the countryand that the media is biased or elitist.

The source of this disconnect, it turns out, stems from the difference in the way political journalists and the American public view democracy, according to astudy by the University of Missouri School of Journalism published in Journalism Studies. Journalists tendto have a more elitist view of democracy, according to the studys authors Tim Vos and David Wolfgang of U.M. This means that once a political candidate is elected into office, he will have control over decision making, without extensive input from the public. The job of journalists is simply to inform the public about what is going on in government to best prepare the public for the next election cycle.

This version of democracy is what some theorists call elitist democracy elites do the business of governing and journalism performs a checking function on behalf of a disinterested public, the authors wrote in the 18-page report, which was originally published in October.

This differs from the populist view more widely held by Americans which is that the public should have input on political candidates decisions throughout their term. Under this philosophy of democracy, journalists would cover the opinions of different social groups.

This disconnect has shown itself many times in recent months, as a large portion of the American public has expected political news to be covered in one way while reporters are covering political news in a different way, Vos said.

By performing extensive interviews with political journalists from national publications, Vos and Wolfgang found that lack of diversity of sources was also responsible for the divide between journalists and the public. The demand for quick reporting has meant that journalists often turn to one source they know will respond quickly, but many times this comes at the expense of including multiple sources. The philosophy of elite democracy also means that political journalists favor the voices of elite government officials above other sources, which can leave viewpoints outside the two main political parties unreported.

This not only has led to many readers being upset about the style, tone and content of the news coverage, but also journalists appearing out-of-touch with their audience, Vos said. While neither of these views about democracy are wrong, journalists need to do a better job of understanding their audiences so they can cover political issues better.

Read more from the original source:
The Media And The Public Disagree On Definition Of Democracy - Vocativ

Charlotte Observer

Another darkness that threatens democracy Charlotte Observer What Democracy Dies in Darkness is, is darkly, starkly, foreshadowing. What else could a warning about a potentially fatal threat to our democracy be? And there is another truth that is undeniably if darkly clear; another manner of death threatening ... The Washington Post's new slogan turns out to be an old sayingStuff.co.nz all 4 news articles »

Link:
Another darkness that threatens democracy - Charlotte Observer

Published on February 27th, 2017 | by Zachary Shahan

February 27th, 2017 by Zachary Shahan

It doesnt require complicated calculus to chooserenewable energy over fossil fuels and electric transport over oil-propelled vehicles. Its just simple addition these days.

For electricity generation, you look at the market cost of electricity from different sources (renewables are typically now cheapest), you add in any external societal costs, and you come up with the total cost. For fossil fuels, you do the same. Adding in the health costs of fossil fuels long ago made renewables the cheapest option. If you also wanted to take into account the potential societal collapse that comes from global warming, the equations even more dramatic.

Nonetheless, we continue to use and even build fossil fuel power plants.

Its a similar story with electric transport versus oil-based transport.

And, frankly, its a similar story in many other realms of our society.

As has been stated many times, a free market requires that full information be widely available. A democracy has the same theoretical requirement. It also requires that the population be engaged and make decisions based on that full & free information.

Clearly, we dont have full and free informationand we never will. We each have huge information gaps, and then we also have people actively working to disinform/misinform others. This means that we have fundamental flaws in any implementation of a free market or democracy.

Of course, the further we stray from full & free information as well as consumer & civic action based on that information the further we stray from a theoretical democratic ideal.

This point has become painfully obvious in the US over the past year. (I wont go into the details ofhow this has been so painfully obvious you either get it at this point or you are living in the kind of information-deficient and information-warped world that stimulatedthis article.) We are getting a taste of how extremely far we are from a free market and a democratic society. And while we taste this sour, bitter, out-of-date, rotten alternative, the debate many of us are having internally and externally is, Can we recover a half-decent democracy or are we headed for fatal collapse?

Again, I think looking at this matter through the lens of energy is useful and interesting. But before we do that, its also worth noting that we are in an odd situation in the US forvarious reasons.

Donald Trump Seems Legitimately Crazy

Even in cases where information is abundantly available and clear, even with the modern ease of Google, people dont want to be bothered to learn. They dont want to be bothered to look up the facts, dig into the details, and get a fairly objective, deep lay persons understanding of many topics that are relevant to their lives.

People preferentertainment and convenience.

People think its fine to remain ignorant.

Thats how we got Trump as president. He was probably the least qualified person to ever run for president under a major party, let alone win the presidency. But hes an entertainer and a brander. He knows how to persuade people even how to persuade people to throw $20,000 away on a phony get rich quick scheme disguised as a fake university and he watches TV news obsessively enough to have a decent sense of what the average American might feel is important to them politically. No, that didnt at all prepare him to bepresident, but people couldntbe bothered to figure that out and it was enough for him to win the presidency.

Back when Hillary clinched the Democratic Party nomination, I wrote an article of advice for her. I recommended that she get more progressive on the issues (yes, she has been progressive on several things, but she is a proud centrist and that needed to change big league), and I recommended that she have fun. The point of having fun was to entertain, to show people her humanity, to show people she was one of them. She seemed to tryboth of them a little bit, but she was much less effective than the NYC billionaire living in a gold-plated penthouse at entertaining and pulling people into her fold in that way. It was one of ~51 things that led to the black swan presidency we now have (other factors, of course, included Hillary being too establishment, a 25-year smear campaign focused on her, Russian interference, FBI screwups, etc., etc.).

The overall point is that, whether with the free market or democracy, we have a problem people dont dig into the facts, dont seem to care about the facts, and mostly want to be entertained and provided with easy answers that fit into their cultural or individual worldview.

What does this mean?

As much as I like and sometimes subscribe to the idea that the better tech, the better solution, the truth, etc., etc., breaks through and wins the day eventually, that is sometimes a fallacy itself, especially when you consider the tight race we are in.

If wewant important and useful information to reach more people, we need to entertain, we need to persuade, we need to realize that our democracyisnt close to pure and never will be, just as our free market isnt close to pure and never will be.

Im certainly not recommending playing dirty or using alternative facts, as somepeople do, but persuasion is critical, and it is not simply about presenting the facts. Democracy is in essence a battle of persuasion. Unfortunately, many of the people with non-alternative facts are losing right now lets do more than blame the idiots. The idiots have always been there.

When it comes to energy, we can be sure that the extremely rich and powerful fossil/pollution energy industry will use any methods it canto persuade people and limit cleantech growth. We cant approach the challenge lightly or limply. We need people power to overcome $$$ power.

Additionally, as we transition to a cleaner energy world, I think its worth keeping an eye on where we are shifting the power. If we continue to shift it to megacorporations, they will continue to use their money to their advantage over ours. If we shift power to communities, local businesses, rooftops, schools, etc., we can have a more democratic energy system, and thus a much more democratic society and world. The opportunity is at our fingertips. Use your time and resources wisely.

Related:

Our Community Solar archives.

Our Rooftop Solar archives.

Easy As Two Plus Two How To Regain Our Democracy

Our Energy Opportunities Conservatives Should Love & Demand These

Republicans Moderates? Humanity-Crushing Extremists? Stealth Societal Saviors?

What If Obama Did This? & Wheres Trumps Birth Certificate?

Solar & Wind Jobs Growing 12x Faster Than US Economy?

Do Americans Understand What Government Is For?

The Links & Lack of Links Between Cleantech & Politics

The Facts Dont Matter, Maam Seriously

Lets Be Frank, Donald Trump Presidency = A Lot More People Dying Prematurely

Unfit & Unhinged A Lesson In Messaging & How To Not Elect Batshit Crazy Presidents

Push Trump To Create Clean Energy Jobs

Gods Waiting Room Targets 100% Renewable Electricity

Help The Rich, Help The Rich, Help The Rich Republican Policy 101

Democrats, This Is A Wakeup Call You Better Fuckin Wake Up!

What Is The Role Of The Media?

30 Cases Of Anti-Humanity Extremism From Republicans In Congress & Donald Trump

Buy a cool T-shirt or mug in the CleanTechnica store! Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Republicans

Zachary Shahan is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

Continue reading here:
Our Real Problem With Democracy - CleanTechnica

After five weeks of steadily pummeling, American democracy is holding because its institutions are stronger than Donald Trump. Lets begin with the press.

As John McCain reminded us, dictators get started by suppressing free press and Donald Trump is no exception. Trump and his press spokesman, Sean Spicer, will not be satisfied until there is a totally sycophantic press, accepting Trumps twisted view of the truth, and adoringly reflecting it back to the great leader and his people. Kind of like the free press in Putins Russia.

But thats not going to happen. The press has never been more determined to hold its ground.

Certainly, press solidarity behind the First Amendment is not all that it should be.

In last weeks schoolyard game of banning from a White House briefing media with the temerity to expose Trumps lies, propaganda organs like Fox News and the Washington Times were all too pleased to play Sean Spicers petty game. Shamefully, so were ABC and NBC, whose correspondents did not walk out when the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and other mainstream media were banished.

But maybe this charade is a blessing in disguise. For one thing, news organs will have to decide whether they are part of White House propaganda machine, or genuinely independent media. The ones that merely parrot Trumps lies will start looking very foolish.

For another, White House press briefings are vastly overrated. Its no accident that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were on the Metro staff of the Washington Post, and did not cover the Nixon White House. They went after the real story where they found it, and press aide Ron Zieglers pressroom was the last place to look.

I had a White House press pass in that era, and I seldom used it. I can tell you that precious little news emerged from Nixon press conferences or briefings.

Fencing matches between reporters and Spicer are a weird form of entertainment, but not a venue from which truth will emerge. Besides, entertainment is Trumps genre, not that of a free press.

Theres a good case that the serious press should not allow itself to be props in Spicers petty games. They should demand equal treatment, but if he continues to play favorites, the hell with him. Indeed, if the Times, the Post, and other serious news organs are banished from the White House, they will have more time and resources to ferret out the truth.

Bullies usually turn out to be cowards. Spicer is hiding from the serious press because he cant face the truth. Likewise Trumps own refusal to follow custom and attend the White House Correspondents annual dinner. Hed be roasted alive.

Each day that Spicer stage-manages a phony press conference, the serious media should publish lists of questions that demand answers. If Spicer ducks them, hes that much more of a coward, because he and his boss cant face the truth.

The press is one of several firebreaks in an era when the President of the United States wants to govern as a dictator. And the press is not alone. Indeed, some of the firebreaks, institutions usually considered conservative, are already surprising Trump.

One is the courts. Even with the eventual confirmation of Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, the courts will take a dim view of efforts by Trump to defy court orders. There is a higher loyalty to the independence of the judiciary. As opportunistic as many conservative judges are, an open attempt to place the president above the law would be struck down.

Another is the military. The military tends to be conservative in the best sense of the word. When zealous civilians (Cheney, Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, LBJ, Richard Nixon et.al.) send American forces on fools errands based on grandiose lies, it is the military that pays the price. And the generals know that.

It is strange for people with no love of militarism to admit that the security of American democracynot just in the sense of the national defense but of democracy itselfis now in the hands of three retired Marine Corps generals: the defense secretary James Mattis, the national security adviser H.R. McMaster and John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security.

These are serious men, with the patriotism and self-respect to tell the president when he is blowing smoke. He cant fire them all.

As Patrick Granfield wrote in a thoughtful piece for Politico:

A fundamental shift in civil-military relations is taking hold. Rather than civilian leaders checking military power, it is now military leaders who represent one of the strongest checks against the overreach of a civilian executive.

A fourth firebreak is at least part of corporate America. The nations most innovative companies have little patience for Trumps war on immigrants, and are willing to say so. (Other corporations, alas, are following a venerable tradition of getting in bed with fascism if it serves their bottom lines.)

Yet another firebreak is American federalism in two senses. Some blue states and cities can demonstrate policies that are the opposite of Trumpism. These policies are vulnerable, however, because most waivers that allow states to have policies at odds with those of the national government (such as higher minimum wages or tougher clean air standards) are merely statutory, not constitutional. And law can be changed.

But a stronger federal firebreak is the power of state attorneys general, who are beyond the reach of the Trump administration. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is said to be pursuing major investigations of Trump corruption under state law. Among other findings, these investigations could force the release of Trumps tax records.

The press, by its nature, is an insurgent institution. It has always battled privilege and deception. But its a little strange for progressives to be cheering for other institutions that only yesterday were seen as citadels of conservatism: the military, the courts and states rights. Yet these are not just instruments of rightwing policies they are conservative in a deeper sense, one that is especially needed now.

One conservative institution, however, is missing from this list the Republican Party. To an appalling degree, Republicans have been willing to let Trump govern as a would-be dictator, as long as it serves their policy and partisan goals. If John McCain can shame a few more Republicans into remembering true conservative principles, it will drastically shorten this terrible time for America.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis Universitys Heller School. His latest book is Debtors Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/0307959805

Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook: http://facebook.com/RobertKuttner

Excerpt from:
Why American Democracy Will Hold Strong - Huffington Post