Opposite the Editorial Page: Cultural Political Interventions Michael D. Kennedy Original Texts Below the List of Publications/Interviews Television Interviews Story in the Public Square on the Sociological Imagination, Globalizing Knowledge, and the Time of Trump, March 22, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5P88I4YuD0 WPRI Newsmakers Political Roundtable on Donald Trump, February 17, 2017 http://wpri.com/2017/02/17/newsmakers-2172016-political-roundtable-on-president-trump/ State of Mind with Dan Yorke June 16, 2017 “Dissecting Law vs. Loyalty in the Time of Trump” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/06/16/616-dissecting-law-versus-loyalty-in-the-trump-era-on-state-of-mind/ (with Tim Edgar) March 21, 2017 “Brown University Sociologist Questions the Moment of President Trump’s Downfall” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/03/22/321-brown-university-sociologist-questions-the-moment-of-president-trumps-downfall-on-state-of-mind/ February 7, 2017 “Probing Comments on Putin’s State of Mind” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/02/07/27-probing-trumps-comments-on-putin-on-state-of-mind/ January 3, 2017 “Twitter Policy Transformations and Russian Hacking Analysis” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/01/03/13-twitter-policy-transformations-and-russian-hacking-analysis-on-state-of-mind/ March 12, 2014 on Ukraine http://wpri.com/2014/03/12/312-brown-univ-professors-on-state-of-mind/ (with Anna Lysyanskaya) Print/Blog: (June 15, 2017) “On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/rule-law-rule-loyalty-political-epistemics-trump-communism/#more-4120 (May 27, 2017) “Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/78143-2/ (May 26, 2017) “Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump” (an introduction to a series of student papers on the sociological imagination after Trump) RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/sociology-trump1/ (May 25, 2017) “The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” http://www.rifuture.org/the-impending-legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ (April 7, 2017) Interviewed in G. Wayne Miller, “Foreign-policy experts assess impact of missile strike against Syria” Providence Journal with additional thoughts below (March 30, 2017) “Attacking Higher Education Kills More than Academic Freedom” http://www.ehu.lt/en/news/show/prof-michael-kennedy-attacking-higher-education-kills-more-than-academic-freedom (March 2, 2017) “Trump’s Articulation of the Nation” http://www.rifuture.org/trumps-articulation-of-the-nation/ (I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017 at the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs) (February 21, 2017) “The Conflicts and Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/conflicts-contradictions-trump-legitimation-crisis/ (February 15, 2017) “The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ (February 3, 2017) “On Explaining Trump in the World: In Response to Maria Eugenia Plano and Paula Lugones” portions of this response can be found in Spanish in this interview: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/comportamiento-erratico-magnate-domesticado_0_SyovmDCdx.html (January 30, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #MuslimBan in Providence Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-the-muslimban/#.WJUw2rYrK8o (January 22, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-and-the-womensmarch/#.WJUwnLYrK8o (December 29, 2016) “On Democracy in Poland 2016: In Response to Dario Mizrahi” portions of this response are found in http://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2016/12/31/crece-la-alarma-en-europa-por-un-pais-que-se-desliza-hacia-al-autoritarismo/ (November 22, 2016) “Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump” http://www.rifuture.org/recurrent-and-resurgent-whiteness-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 11, 2016) “Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump” http://policytrajectories.asa-comparative-historical.org/2016/11/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/#more-546 an extended version: http://www.rifuture.org/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 9, 2016) “Call It By Its Name” (on the Trump Victory) in http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident (November 8, 2016) “Solidarity in America” (October 10, 2016) “The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump” RI Future (July 28, 2016) “The Politics of Progressive Identification and the DNC” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/politics-of-progressive-identification-dnc.html (July 21, 2016) “Ideology in the Time of Trump Is Fantasy” (http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html; an abbreviated version of which can be found here: http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FantasyofTrump) (June 24, 2016) “On Brexit: Breaking a System Does Not Fix the Problems” http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FacultyCommentaryBrexit (April 25, 2016) “Why People Feel the Bern: The Movement for Democracy Beyond Elections” reentitled “Bernie Sanders for Rhode Island” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-for-rhode-island.html (March 10, 2016) “Solidarity or Escapism” (September 25, 2015) “Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, Who Is Your Favorite Superhero and Why? (September 5, 2015) “Brexit, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity” http://www.queries-feps.eu/brexit-ubermensch-escapism-and-anglo-american-european-solidarity/ (August 1, 2015) “Bernie Sanders is Captain America” Michael D. Kennedy, Jane Goodman and Steven Goodman (July 29, 2015) “A Comparative and Historical Sociology of Alternative Futures” WebForum for the 2016 International Sociological Association meetings. http://futureswewant.net/michael-kennedy-comparing-alternative-futures/ (December 11, 2014) “Negotiating Revolution from Poland to Hong Kong?” (December 5, 2014) “Engaging Intellectuals and Politicians” University World News http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141203123125417 (December 3, 2014) “Rethinking the Social Question: Where is Class in Trade and Where Does Latin America Belong” Stanford University Press Blog http://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/rethinking-the-social-question.html (April 18, 2014) “Rethinking Catastrophe in Ukraine” (April 17, 2014) “Defining Ukraine: Domestic Politics in the Shadow of Catastrophe,” a panel with Dominque Arel, Margarita Balmaceda, Mychailo Wynnyckyj and me available onwebcast here http://watson.brown.edu/events/2014/defining-ukraine-domestic-politics-shadow-catastrophe (March 12, 2014) “This Is Not a New Cold War: Engaging Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine” (March 7, 2014) “Solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s Reality” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/03/solidarity-with-ukraine-against-putins-reality/#.Uxo5G17TM7B (March 5, 2014) Ukraine Teach In at Brown University (video) http://mediacapture.brown.edu:8080/ess/echo/presentation/3eaef26e-e381-478d-8549-ba8863be85ea w/ commentary from the Providence Journal: http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140305-at-brown-putin-s-actions-seen-having-lengthy-repercussions.ece Brown Daily Herald: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/03/06/teach-explores-roots-ukrainian-political-upheaval/ (March 5, 2014) “The West Should Stop Squirming and Put Sanctions on Russia” Michael D. Kennedy and Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/us-should-put-sanctions-on-russia (March 5, 2014) “If the West Stands Up to Putin, Russian Economy Will Pay Heavy Cost” Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. and Michael D. Kennedy Global Post http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/if-west-stands-putin-russian-economy-will-pay-heavy-cost (March 2, 2014) “After Invasion Analytical Thinking and Diplomacy around Ukraine” February 28, 2014 “Diplomatic and Analytical Failure in the face of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” (February 26, 2014) “Expertise and Ukraine in Transformation” (2/26/14) Watson Institute for International Studies “Ask the Expert” https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 (February 23, 2014) “Ukraine’s Bully Must Be Removed” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140223-michael-d.-kennedy-ukraines-bully-must-be-removed.ece (February 22, 2014) “Move Beyond Concern to Consequence in Supporting Ukraine’s Revolution” (December 5, 2013 ) “A Nonviolent Revolution in Ukraine” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20131205-michael-d.-kennedy-a-nonviolent-revolution-in-ukraine.ece (June 21, 2013) “Occupy Movements Around the World: How Is Brazil’s Different?” Huffpost (Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Michael D. Kennedy) (February 3, 2012) “Poles Rallying for Our Digital Freedom” Providence Journal B6 (October 20, 2011) “An Ex-Premiere’s Plight and the Future of Ukrainian Freedom and Democracy” Providence Journal, B7 (October 19, 2004) “Are Poles Bushmen?” Chicago Tribune (December 11, 2001) “FBI Interviews Feel Hauntingly Familiar” Detroit Free Press Texts of Op Eds and Notes Accompanying Discussions (June 15, 2017) “On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/rule-law-rule-loyalty-political-epistemics-trump-communism/#more-4120 On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism Michael D. Kennedy June 15, 2017 Socialism was to be a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, a consciousness-driven model of social transformation but without the processes that would allow it to validate its understandings against how the world really worked. Focused more on mobilization against an enemy than understanding itself and its society, the Communist Party and its state were both constituted through mechanisms they also made. The way in which they were made also prevented authorities from recognizing the real problems they faced. I wrote that paragraph to describe Andreas Glaeser’s book on the political epistemics organizing the East German society communists ruled. One can understand Trump Rule better in light of that work, as well as of others illuminating communist rule. It’s not only the pervasiveness of the lie. Do we need to trust authorities to act on our behalf and require no evidence that they do? Do we need to emulate the sycophancy of the leaders’ lieutenants in order to find our place in the new order? If we challenge authority, do we risk becoming an enemy? In this kind of order, it’s not the rule of law but the rule of loyalty that determines trustworthiness and truthfulness. I have been waiting for President Trump to depart from this approximation of high communism, but in recent weeks, he only moves closer to this system-destructive disposition. We can see that march in two steps, with one side-step giving me hope for system-recovery. Loyalty and Law Under communist rule, the Communist Party was the most sacred object in the system because it embodied a substantive rationality rooted in the assignation of virtually divine status to the Party. I explained this position in 1991 (p. 203): The sacred status of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union derived from its position as the incarnation of the hierophantic October Revolution. Eastern European parties gained their initially sacred status by conference from that incarnation. This sacred status of the party means that loyalty to it becomes a higher principle than any other moral guidelines…The Komsomol slogan of ‘the party is our reason, honor and conscience’ means that individual conscience is completely estranged and embodied in the “mythical will of the organization” In 1968, Poland’s Communist Party even formally rejected the challenge made by Leszek Kolakowski and others that individual conscience should take precedence over party dictates for deciding morality. Former FBI director James Comey’s public testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee last week moved the question of loyalty in America front and center. He claimed that Trump demanded personal loyalty to him, something Trump had done many times before in private business. But in the US, commissioned officers in the uniformed services and federal officials swear to defend to the Constitution, not pledge personal fealty to one’s supreme leader. It is easy to see how President Trump could presume that loyalty to him and to the Constitution as one in the same, especially if he presumes to embody the nation itself in ways that the Party embodied socialism. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others invoke a custom that declares their conversations with the president beyond the bounds of Constitutional oversight (made without any invocation of presidential privilege), this signals, again, rule by a unitary figure rather than rule by a Constitution that recognizes three equal branches of government. The sycophantic display by Trump’s Cabinet officials on June 12, thanking him for the opportunity to work with him, is another moment evidencing the importance of loyalty in Trump’s rule. Indeed, the differences among these performances make the point even clearer. Mike Pence said, "It is just the greatest privilege of my life is to serve as the -- as vice president to the President who's keeping his word to the American people and assembling a team that's bringing real change, real prosperity, real strength back to our nation." By contrast, Jim Mattis said, "Mr. President, it's an honor to represent the men and women of the Department of Defense. And we are grateful for the sacrifices our people are making in order to strengthen our military so our diplomats always negotiate from a position of strength. Thank you." In a culture where loyalty is demanded, whether to the Party or to the Boss, critique is hard to come by, and sometimes hard to read. But experience in reading communist rule and resistance to it helps us appreciate what Secretary of Defense Mattis was doing in that moment. Sidestep to opposition and critique. Opposition and Critique Of course there was no critique apparent in the Attorney General’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13. Jeff Sessions’ testimony was filled “with more emotion than specifics as he showcased his loyalty to Mr. Trump”. Senator Tom Cotton extended that effect by ridiculing the investigation into Russian collusion by asking the AG if he liked Jason Bourne and James Bond. That good humor, and Sessions’ notable emotional release in the exchange with this familiar, signaled the reproduction of a certain kind of political alliance. Their affinity was made even more clear in contrast to Senator Kamala Harris’s interrogation. I am far from alone in marking the racial and gender dynamics of Trump’s mode of legitimation, but even if an observer of the Sessions hearing had never considered it before, the exchange between Harris and Sessions clarified. Her prosecutorial style was augmented by throwing shade in ways that make those claiming to be color blind nervous. It wasn’t just her rapid fire delivery and attempt to forestall his filibuster that unsettled him; it was her obvious challenge to the decorum of a Senate defined by white men of privilege. It doesn’t take experience analyzing communist rule and resistance to it to see that. And while Senator Harris won many fans in that exchange, I fear that conflict does not undermine Trump, or Sessions. Racist and misogynist schema work to assign her as rude, and deserving of white patriarchal rebuke. It’s just not becoming to see a gentleman get all flustered. Part of Trump’s legitimation depends on that racialized and gendered conflict. Kimberle Crenshaw’s recent piece dispels any lingering illusions that white supremacy is not securely anchored in the distribution of American power and privilege, and that Trump doesn’t thrive because of it. It’s worth debating whether the different modes of reproduction for white supremacy and patriarchy matter. At least I see a difference between those who feel like they must legitimate their power and privilege through the law, and those who trample it with their power and privilege. And thus I look for those who might challenge Trump’s abuse of presidential authority, especially when they are close to that authority. I can see some of that critical edge in Secretary of Defense Mattis’s words and reference because it resembles some of the resistance I have explored in communist ruled societies. Of course that resistance was patently evident on February 19, 2017, when Jim Mattis declared, in distinction to Trump’s implication that they are the enemy of America, that he has no issues with the press. It might even be apparent when, after being asked about the London terror attack, the General declared on the Singapore tarmac before his June 5 departure, “I like to learn about something before I talk”. In a fashion reminiscent of those among and beyond communist authorities trying to find independent voice, one has to read between the lines to find critique. I found that clearly evident in Mattis’s Memorial Day remarks. On May 29 at Arlington National Cemetery, Mattis quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to say of soldiers, "having known great things they are content with silence". Intellectual that Mattis is, I wondered whether he chose that line to make a particularly pointed reference to President Trump, his succeeding speechmaker, who declares everything he does to be the greatest. But there is more. When you read the broader speech by Holmes that Mattis references, one of the most eloquent of American jurists celebrates honor (not all of which in today’s cultural sensibilities is virtuous). In that account, there is no obvious place for a man with Trump’s values and practices.  Here, in the most typical of intellectual dissident fashion, Mattis makes his critique of Trump loud and clear for those who can read, and write, more than a tweet. At least I heard that, and I trust I am not alone, even if Trump can’t see it. But it is important for those in the opposition to be able to see it. We need to recognize that not all those around Trump accept Trump’s departures from the best of America. We need to escape the trap Trump and his like-minded set for those who can see the world only in terms of friends and enemies. In that contest, Trump reproduces the conditions of his own rule. Reason and Conspiracy Trump’s inability to acknowledge mistakes suggest an even greater resemblance to the Communist Party with its insistence on infallibility; in both, the source of all problems rests in the work of enemies. Even on the day after the Alexandria attack on Republicans practicing baseball, and after Trump himself declared the importance of unity in America, he damn-tweeted those investigating the possibility of an obstruction of justice: “You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA”. With the hashtag referencing Make America Great Again, it is clear that democratic difference pursued through the rule of law has no place in Trump’s Great America, especially when he is the object of that legal question. By turning legal inquiries into struggles with enemies, Trump and his like-minded friends are turning America evermore into a condition that resembles Glaeser’s East Germany. East Germany fell because the secret police and their communist authorities understood their system in ways that became ever more disconnected from reality. The only kinds of threats they could recognize came from the capitalist class enemy without, and those that enemy organized within the German Democratic Republic. Witch Hunt = Capitalist Sedition. Those GDR authorities could only see problems through the friend/enemy lens, and could not understand the real social origins of civil society and its various commitments to environmentalism, peace, and democracy. They could only see contest as the result of conspiracy with an enemy. Sound familiar? If I were Trump’s advisor, if I were Steve Bannon, I would recommend they read Glaeser and ask whether they wish to repeat what happened in the GDR. It may be that finding enemies elsewhere, and stoking conflict by embedding real tragedies into self-serving narratives, will appeal to their like-minded, and help to generate the conflict that preserves their rule. But that disposition destroys their ability to recognize what is really going on, while destroying the system over which the Electoral College gave them authority. Of course I could be missing the real Real. Many of Trump’s supporters, and perhaps the President himself, views the Deep State as the real Real. With that lens, appeals to constitutionalism, professionalism, and the rule of law in the characterization of the Special Counsel’s work look to be a sham, and an attack on the greatest ever personification of the American people. For a huge number of Trump supporters, and perhaps for Trump himself, the ultimate enemy is this Deep State manifest in its professional intelligence community mobilized to query whether he has obstructed justice. To the Trumpian sensibility, the law has become a weapon of war wielded by their enemies. This, then, is the deep problem: when the real goes beyond the empirically demonstrable, as capitalist sedition did in communist East Germany, no amount of reason and evidentiary argument can supplant the question of who is with us, and who is against us. It’s not just that the rule of loyalty replaces the rule of law. It replaces the rule of reason with the rule of conspiracy. Institutional Resilience or Ignorance of History I am struck by those like Norm Eisen who believe that US institutions are sufficiently resilient to withstand Trump’s constitutional ignorance and congenital misrepresentations. Most students of communist rule also thought that system resistant to transformation. I was more focused on the conditions of transformation than most, and after the fact, I tried to explain the peacefulness and rapidity of its transformation. But I was continually surprised over the course of 1989-91, and shocked and disgusted by the succeeding destruction of the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. Of course communist rule was much more fragile than the system of power and privilege organizing the USA. With our decentralization of power relations and our political and legal systems for the resolution of difference in relatively peaceful fashion, we should not anticipate anything like the radical transformation communist rule experienced. However, we are headed in the very direction that made the Soviet Union and its near abroad collapse. When truth becomes a weapon and when loyalty to a person or a group trumps the law, we lose the capacity to adjudicate differences and to believe that the system is potentially redeemable. Loyalty to a remedial Constitution above any individual or group enables justice to be a future toward which we peaceably strive. Kamala Harris is a hero for now, and she will be, or others like her will be, our president in the future if hope can remain part of our constitution. Outright opposition is critical. But we also need those apparently with Trump to find their conscience to step up to defend the Constitution. Of course if Mattis and others sidestep Trump’s loyalty dance, they will become his enemy. But it’s only if we can combine their maneuver with the resistance Harris exemplifies that we might transcend Trump’s political epistemics and preserve the Constitution that enables our peaceable progress as a nation. (May 27, 2017) “Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/78143-2/ Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America Michael D. Kennedy May 27, 2017 Norm Eisen just delivered one of the best talks I have ever heard in the Watson Institute. By following his work, I knew that he was smart, ethical, and courageous, but I did not expect that he would have done what the best presentations do: fuse apparent contradictions into transcendent vision. Eisen did just that in presenting a view of our particular nation in the most universal of terms, even while celebrating the even more particular Brown University to which we are both tied. Eisen recalled his time at Brown, his work in the infirmary where he could study more than by laboring in the library. He evoked the spirit of Brown’s commitment to liberal values, in the sense of scholarly reason and deep reflection while acknowledging that liberalism also having something of a political accent. But I would defy anyone to brand this talk as necessarily liberal in the partisan sense, especially given his career and more recent commitments. With his work as litigator, he has represented many different interests. It is clear, of course, that he does live in the Democratic Party’s side of the nation, having served as the “ethics tsar” for the Obama White House, and then as Ambassador to the Czech Republic during that presidency. But given his partnership with Richard Painter, the ethics tsar for George W. Bush, even that partisan identification fades before a vision of America defined by bipartisanship on the most vital issues before the nation. Painter and Eisen defined that vital issue most recently by asking whether our president is a criminal with his obstruction of justice. Of course this also builds on their prior work in launching a suit against Trump for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has not ruled as to whether the US President enjoys sovereign immunity, Eisen today noted that the brief for denying that immunity is already complete with the work of Leon Jaworski in US v Nixon. As such, Eisen finds that litigation, rather than impeachment, is a more likely course to save US from the cancer Trump’s leadership brings to the notion of public service and its consequent disdain for the Constitution. The preceding reflection could have been moved by following Norm Eisen’s work and learning trajectory, but what floored me was his ability to move beyond the litigator’s spirit to one animated by love, something I don’t usually associate with lawyers’ public ways. One reason this talk was so profound was that it was not only about the fate of the nation, but very much a personal story about Eisen and his family. He came to Brown from a humble southern Californian lifestyle with profound trauma in background; his mother lost family exiled to Auschwitz. A Holocaust survivor herself, she was also a student of history, of the world, and she worried to her son that the end of the Cold War could be dangerous: without an external enemy, we are likely to fight with each other, within our nations. The vitriol with which we see partisan conflict in the USA today was evidence, Eisen mused, that his mother, now gone from this world four years, was right. His mother also worried about the dangers a reunited Germany would pose to the world, but Eisen’s sense of irony was on full display. In today’s world, it is the leader of that united Germany, Angela Merkel, who stands tallest in support of the liberal values represented by Brown University and the USA at their best. This is testament to, he said, the power of love in the world. In the wake of a defeated Nazi Germany, the USA offered a way to rebuild Germany with the Marshall Plan, to create, in that process, the vital democracy we now see standing up to authoritarians, and for human rights, around the world. Although I am a fan of love-driven politics, I have frankly never thought of US foreign policy in those terms. But given the trajectory of America First, I need revisit that question, and perhaps with the optimism and hope Eisen brings. How could he not be an optimist? Eisen asked that very question considering that he became Ambassador to the very lands from which his mother was deported to Auschwitz. He lived in Prague’s US Embassy mansion, built by a Jewish magnate, but during WWII occupied by the very Nazi authorities responsible for the death of his mother’s family. As Ambassador, he lived in that house, remaking it with articles of his own Jewish faith. Evil certainly exists in this world, but we can triumph over it. His religiosity in such optimism is apparent, but his belief appears to center less on God’s design than on his reverence for the Constitution and the brilliance of its designers. I am myself an optimist, but nothing like him. I am worried, frankly, that we in the USA are on the road to Hell, but Eisen has greater faith than I in the power of our Constitution, and in its consequent checks and balances. He seems certain that our Courts, and our Fourth Estate, will prevent the crash of democracy so many more skeptical commentators anticipate. He could even point to evidence this morning of that very fact: the White House has backed down from its own attack on transparency in ethics rules. Perhaps more controversially, he also considers those leaking accounts of Trump’s possibly criminal behavior to be the descendants of Daniel Ellsberg in spirit if not in identical practice. In our US tradition, civil disobedience should be followed by willingness to accept the punishment for ethical, even if illegal, behavior; it is the compromise enabling the rule of law to persevere. But today, the costs of that violation are too great to enable leakers to step forward. That, to my mind as well, is a system problem that needs address more than a problem of individual wrongdoing. Eisen certainly, with his celebration of the brilliance of our Constitution and the courage of those who would defend it and the system of checks and balances it sanctifies, could conclude with hope. But his response to one question from the floor was ominous. For those who are distressed by the rule of Trump and its assault on the rule of law and constitutionality, they might consider an even greater nightmare question: what type of governance will follow the times of Trump? I have greater hope for that future now having seen not only the results of Norm Eisen’s work, but his living character. Indeed, he himself represents the greatest fusion of spirits we need: to be able to look danger squarely in the eye with the spirit that also might find its transcendence. That may be why, in the end, that he does not say he is anti-Trump. He is “pro-constitution”. After today, so am I. (May 26, 2017) “Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump” (an introduction to a series of student papers on the sociological imagination after Trump) RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/sociology-trump1/ Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy and Maria Ortega Does the rise of Trump signal the beginning of a new era for America, for the world? Will he, and his look-alikes across the world, restructure power relations and the distribution of privilege to extend freedom? Or does this mode of governance diminish justice, democracy, peace, and environmental security? Of course in a time so politically polarized as this, we know answers to such questions are likely to depend on one’s standpoint. Consequently, many doubt that one could discuss such issues in a way that goes beyond conventional partisan divisions, and into deeper, more responsible, engaged scholarship. Sociology must. As scholars of sociology, we research how power works and how change happens. We are critical sociologists, as we find it impossible in these times to explain change without engaging the values that move our questions. We both engage audiences beyond fellow academics, notably policy makers and publics. In the end, we are also teachers; our students are our most immediate public. When Kennedy planned to teach introductory sociology for the first time in some 20 years, he anticipated a course dedicated to explaining how culture and power set the parameters for social change, from reform to revolution, from democratization to war. Even after Brexit, when Ortega and he began planning the course in the early fall of 2016, we did not expect that Trump would have been elected. But his election changed everything. Of course such an absolute declaration depends on where you stand. For many people of color, especially those most vulnerable to police and everyday violence, or whose lands are occupied, or for being undocumented or suspected of terrorist ties, change may not be so dramatic as that which most of those first time protesters in the Women’s March of January 21, 2017 felt. However, because so many people in the USA mark the Time of Trump as a moment of potentially radical change, we may be facing revolutionary times. At the very least, it invites us all to rethink our sociological imaginations with new parameters in mind. And that moved our introductory sociology course to 83 Brown University students over the spring term of 2017. About midway through the course, with sociological imaginations on fire, we invited these students to reflect on how sociology helps us engage the Time of Trump. With the series of papers that follow, we share some of the excellent papers we read following that assignment. As you will appreciate, questions are many, standpoints various, methods multiple, and styles heterogeneous. They are all, however, expressions of professional, critical, policy and public sociology, exemplifying what it means to be an engaged scholar in these times. Brown University is known for its liberal reputation among universities, but not always for its connection to its most proximate publics in Rhode Island. With changes in the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, notably with its embrace of Public Policy, and the Swearer Center for Public Service, notably with the extension of its engaged scholars program, the university might find greater common cause with surrounding communities. Indeed, we hope that the papers following can be another signal of that trajectory, in what our discipline calls public sociology. For the two of us, however, this is also inspiring sociology. Learning from our students renews our commitment to refining the sociological imagination for our times, for our future. (May 25, 2017) “The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” http://www.rifuture.org/the-impending-legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America Michael D. Kennedy May 23, 2017 Three months ago I marked the looming legitimation crisis in Trump’s America. I subsequently argued that not all contradictions accompanying President Trump’s governance magnified that crisis. In the succeeding months, those conflicts that reinforced cultural authority among Trump’s base have not changed much, if at all. However, his Russian Achilles Heel has grown much more vulnerable while the health care crisis functions to make him even more unstable. I have been able to extend these points around Trump’s legitimation crisis on various television programs but I consolidate those observations here. In what follows, I elaborate some of my original argument from the second article in this series, one that was animated by my crude sketch. An anonymous artist has transformed that image to accompany this third essay on the legitimation crisis in Trump’s America. But before I elaborate, I clarify the meaning of “legitimation crisis”. Recognizing Legitimation Crisis I previously simplified legitimation crisis as the lack of sufficient cultural authority to support legal authority. Its scholarly elaboration is much more substantial. In its classic formulation, legitimacy refers to an acknowledged right to govern, but that right has different kinds of cultural authority behind it. More than a century ago, sociologist Max Weber argued that such authority could have different sources -- tradition, a rational/legal system, or charisma. Legitimation crisis as such is associated with a 1973 book by Jürgen Habermas, but Nancy Fraser recently has refined his argument. She notes both the abiding, and transforming, legitimation crisis of advanced capitalism, in a condition where “public opinion turns against a dysfunctional system that fails to deliver” (p. 165). She also draws on Antonio Gramsci to elaborate how hegemonies and counter-hegemonies work in that contest: What grounds hegemonic worldviews—and their counter-hegemonic rivals—are suppositions about the subject positions and capacities for agency available to social actors, the proper responsibilities and actual capabilities of public powers, the structure and operation of the reigning social order, the principles and frames of justice by which that order is to be evaluated, and the historical availability of desirable and feasible alternatives. (p. 172). This is a good guide. For this immediate context, and perhaps for other Trump-type societies, the most immediate issue before us is the distribution of justice frames. By articulating that distribution with hegemony as such, we not only can recognize conflicts animating Trump-type rule but also parse which contests reproduce cultural authority and which ones transform it. It’s not enough to have an increasingly alienated and mobilized opposition to authority for a legitimation crisis to develop. After all, legitimacy does not depend on everyone, or even a majority, accepting cultural authority; it only depends on assuring that “other authorities confirm decisions of a given authority” (p. 171). A legitimation crisis emerges when those with a sufficient array of resources withdraw their support and challenge an incumbent. That rearticulation of power relations comes from two possible sources: a) where the opposition grows sufficiently strong as to disrupt the reproduction of power and privilege; or b) when erstwhile allies of an authority recognize the danger that authority poses to their own position and withdraw their support. Simply, conflict does not, in and of itself, risk cultural authority. Indeed, others have observed that Trump thrives on crisis and conflict; some conflicts nourish his position and others threaten it. The first five points below reflect the former, the latter two, with different social dynamics, are likely to drive legitimation crisis through to Trump’s impeachment or resignation. Conflicts Reproducing Trump’s Cultural Authority Trump’s economic nationalism is increasingly anchored to militarism... On his first trip abroad, Trump sings the glories of arming Saudi Arabia and assuring them a “good deal” in return for their investment in the US economy and support in defeating ISIS. Trump thus fuses a muscular military strategy with claims to American job creation, replicating that Cold War practice in which US expenditures on oil are returned to the US economy through sales of US weapon systems to client states. While those who prioritize human rights might not find comfort in Trump’s embrace of autocrats elsewhere, they are also unlikely to be among those who support Trump in the first place. Even the beating of peaceful protesters on US soil by the Turkish Prime Minister’s bodyguards might be seen as a small price to pay to gain support from other nations’ strong men to fix security. We can find ways to differentiate Trump’s approach to the Middle East from Obama’s, but there is also significant continuity for US foreign policy toward the region. Nevertheless, I do fear that in that autocratic company, US authorities could acquire an even greater taste for life without protest. Commerce Secretary Ross already celebrated it. But this retreat from human rights and democracy does not, in and of itself, undermine Trump’s cultural authority, and for now, only reinforces his image of being a tough guy making tough choices. His base loves it. Trump came back with a revised Muslim Ban…. That is no Muslim ban, but a travel ban to enhance national security, offer his proponents. And, they may say, to declare Trump hostile to Islam is obviously not the case given his trip to Saudi Arabia. But Mustafa Akyo and Wajahat Ali clarify the disdain evident in his visit. Yes he bowed before the king to receive Saudi honors and, unlike Steve Bannon, managed a smile during a sword dance, but all this, they argue, was much more testament to the fight against terrorism and embrace of autocracy in the process. It was certainly no expression of respect for Islam or its believers as such. Nonetheless, and despite his gaffe, President Trump may have given enough material to those who envision a fundamental conflict between Judeo-Christianity and Islam to deny that Trump’s policies are prejudicial against Islam. In this context, you just need to be sure to give restrictive nationalists (those who prioritize “true Americans”) enough to deny creedal nationalists (those who prioritize the Constitution) the edge in popular contests over defining the nation. But that may not be enough in the legal arena. The arguments before the 9th circuit court were revealing. Judge Michael Hawkins asked Trump’s advocate whether President Trump ever declared that he was wrong, as a presidential candidate, in calling for a Muslim Ban. Without adequate reply, we are simply invited to trust that the President knows what needs be done for national security. That, as the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II reminds us, is no great assurance. No measure of Saudi sword play will suffice to draw proponents of the First Amendment close to Trump. But then they, and Muslim Americans, are not his base. Being hostile to Islam can increase Trump’s appeal among those who already support him for the view that Islam is not like other religions. “Can a Muslim be American; and an American, Muslim?” That question divides America, but does not undermine Trump’s cultural authority. Too many believe the answer is no. Deportation of the undocumented intensifies…. The same contest apparent 3 months ago around the undocumented remains the same, but with accumulating fear, ill health, and insecurity among those at risk of deportation, and for those tied to them. While the number of stories of communities devastated floods the public sphere, including accounts even of previous Trump supporters who thought their families immune from such deportations, this too does not change the calculus surrounding Trump’s cultural authority. It does, however, introduce new rifts into the racial formations of America, where opportunities in political life for people of color to distance themselves from the more vulnerable and dispossessed grow. Thus, rather than focus on ethnicity per se to understand the conflicts and contradictions of Trump rule around documentation, one needs to look at constellations of local power, and how sanctuary rules find sustenance in broader networks of affinity. Regardless of solidarity’s spread, stories of suffering among the undocumented are unlikely to move those with substantial resources already aligned with Trump to withdraw their support from him. The contest over truth generates heat … The elevation of “fake news” has become an ever more important element in the repertoire of those who would defend Trump at all costs. Recently, some of his advocates even have proposed flooding mainstream media with phony leaks as part of the information wars with which news is viewed in Trump’s America. This was even evident in the March for Science. This protest seemed to have been conceived as a politically neutral project designed to elevate evidentiary reason over partisan position in figuring things science might. This enabled Brown University, among other associations obliged to avoid partisan association, to celebrate the mobilization’s embrace of truth and ridicule of concepts like “alternative facts”. However, Trump’s supporters used the political inflections of the protest to diminish its larger point by claiming science to be with them and even offering that those with less science in their backgrounds use a science checklist to challenge politically biased PhDs. Here too conflict seems unlikely to pose much challenge to Trump’s cultural authority given the ways in which intellectual authority and liberal disposition correlate. This is one reason why I’ve become increasingly interested in learning from leading conservative intellectuals whose commitment to reasoned principles animate their accounts of Trump’s governance. But here we need recognize that many of Trump’s supporters are not following principles other than hating on those who oppose Trump. Appeals to truth, reason and evidence in a system where information is weaponized are unlikely to challenge Trump’s cultural authority. The arrogance of Whiteness consolidates his base. The drawing accompanying this essay references the moment when Trump asked April Ryan, an African American White House reporter to convene her friends in the Congressional Black Caucus. That othering is something familiar to those who recognize how resurgent Whiteness draws on the repertoires of recurrent Whiteness. I failed in my past essay to mark how this racialization relies on the criminal justice system itself to magnify racial division. This is especially apparent in the opposition between Blue and Black Lives. Trump has clearly supported the Blue Lives Matter movement. In turn, Black Lives Matter has transformed its practice to extend solidarity, but not in a direction that transforms the vision of those oblivious to the veil. While white ally movements may grow, the challenge of reproducing white privilege even within them daunts. Transforming the power of whiteness is requisite to a just America, but Trump’s America relies on its insurgence, and draws power from racial confrontations, regardless of the justice of their cause. Trump’s cultural authority is reinforced by conflict. It depends on economic nationalism fueled by militarism, disdain for creedal nationalism’s embrace of the First Amendment and the courts, hostility toward the undocumented, contempt for intellectuality, and a new racial formation for America led by white resentment. While struggles will, and need, continue in these domains to protect those marginalized, exploited, vulnerable, and closer to the truth of things, these conflicts will not move legitimation crisis. Two other things will. Transformative Conflicts Generating Legitimation Crisis The implication of Russia in the US election and Trump’s cover up moves consequential conflict among elites. Three months ago, I took Mike Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor as the harbinger of the legitimation crisis that now grows every day. The crisis cascade became a waterfall with the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the man leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and of possible collusion between Russian authorities and Trump’s election team. With the appointment of a special prosecutor with impeccable authority across the power elite, the distribution of incriminating memos by those whom Trump attempted to intimidate, and testimonies by a number of officials about Trump’s quest to obstruct justice in pursuit if not in law, and all this just within the last week, Trump’s cultural authority is not only at risk. With increasing regularity, journalists and pundits, including John Dean himself, liken Trump’s situation to Richard Nixon’s shortly before his own resignation rather than face certain impeachment. The best signal of this precariousness is the repeated warnings to all those in Trump’s employ to get a lawyer to assure their own insulation from the dumpster fire engulfing the White House. Many will point to a key difference with the time of Nixon’s downfall. In contrast to Nixon, Trump’s party controls both houses of Congress, and thus the likelihood of impeachment is slender. But as legal and political challenges mount, the number of Republicans pushing Trump to resign will grow. After all, many of the most prominent Republican Senators, just last year, spoke of the disaster Trump would be as President. They need only recall that oratory and said that they gave him a chance. That becomes even more likely with the popular insurgency developing out of the health care debacle. Trump’s Incompetence Around Health Care Assaults His Base One of the most emotively powerful (and still “respectable” as opposed to the racist and misogynist motifs audible) themes animating the Republican base against Obama and Clinton was the debacle known as Obamacare. Of course that debacle was partially manufactured by the Republican Party itself before Trump was elected. Insurance companies lost their own government insurance for extending coverage, and with that withdrew from small high risk markets, the very same markets Republicans typically represent in Congress. In turn, these political representatives could, a bit disingenuously, charge the earlier presidential administration with ruining the health care of their constituents and mobilize for an alternative. The problem is, of course, that an alternative is not as simple to manufacture as Obamacare’s poison. Those familiar in health care policy and practice could laugh at Trump’s discovery of its complexity were his leadership in devising its alternative not so pathetic. Finally, a second effort to invent an alternative policy passed the House, despite its condemnation by the American Medical Association among other health care professionals and advocates. Rather than return triumphant to their base, however, most Republican Congressmen who signed onto the “reform” hid from their town halls, recognizing the fury their constituents had for being sold a bill of goods that threatened the mortal well-being of them and their families. Indeed, some could hope that the maleness of the decision could move a bit more gender consciousness in the mobilization to come. That movement needs be mobilized, but it is coming. This is a classic legitimation crisis. A dysfunctional health care system, which the Republicans helped to make but clearly now own, is being forced on people who will suffer from it. This is not only sparking moving stories but clear outrage by those who are the Republicans’ electorate. It is hard to imagine how Republicans, whose President is at risk of being accused of high crimes and treason, or at least the obstruction of justice, and whose competence in managing life and death policy changes, as in health care, can retain control of the House after 2018. Past racially motivated gerrymandering may assure some of that survival, but even that now has been declared unconstitutional. The GOP is at risk of death with Trump in the White House. Legitimation Crisis Does Not Determine Its Alternative Apart from facing down a violent crisis (think of the German Reichstag in 1933 or bombings of apartment house buildings in 1999 Moscow, Buynaksk and Volgodonsk), I can see no means by which Trump can survive the legitimation crisis brewed out of a combination of Russian hybrid warfare, obstruction of justice and health care crisis in which he is now implicated. He will be impeached, or he will resign, before his term concludes in 2020. But that end does not, by any means, signal what is the alternative. Some dystopian but perhaps realistic futurists a year ago anticipated that this was some clever plot by Tea Party wizards to engineer their man’s elevation to President. But Mike Pence is himself implicated in many of the legal, and cultural, troubles around Russian interference in our democratic process. Indeed, for some, Trump is better than the ideologically rigid, homophobic, even if twitter averse, Pence. For that reason, Nixon’s threatened impeachment was enabled by the resignation of his Vice President, Spiro Agnew, and replacement with the Congress-friendly former Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford comes to mind. No doubt some work to figure the analogous now. There are many political figures plotting alternative futures for the time after Trump is impeached or resigns. But this should also be a time where those in civil society figure futures beyond the power elite whose management of our political and economic system brought us to this legitimation crisis. While I have focused in this series of publications on the legitimation crisis made by Donald Trump, this is not just Trump’s legitimation crisis. As Nancy Fraser has emphasized, this is a deeper crisis whose transcendence might ultimately enable our betterment. But that is only if we think beyond the system that brought us here in the first place, and toward a system that might enable us not just to survive, but to thrive. (April 7, 2017) G. Wayne Miller, “Foreign-policy experts assess impact of missile strike against Syria” Providence Journal On The Missile Attack in Syria Michael D. Kennedy April 7, 2017 Trump's decision to missile attack the Syrian airbase reflects known qualities and projects uncertain futures.  With this action, Trump postures the reactive and potentially reckless leader that puts global arsenals on edge, mitigated only by the facts that a) within the last days, professionals are more prominent in the National Security Council and b) the GOP seems united in supporting this action which signals Trump's difference from the Obama they called feckless around red lines.  With this action, Trump distracts from the legitimation crisis around his presidency that had been escalating, not only by redirecting our attention to his muscular response to a war crime, but also by apparently challenging Russian President Putin whose support for Assad makes this action even riskier.  We need to wonder, however, whether this "measured response" (it was by no means a signal of intended full scale assault) is not itself remarkable theater; after all, Russia was forewarned that this was coming, and thus, can be seen as partnering in assuring its minimal kinetic effect while maximizing its potential diplomatic effect.  Finally, we must consider that even the most carefully planned actions carry terrific risk of unintended consequences; the Syrian war, with its multiple conflicting interests, makes any projected outcomes based on war game strategies quite uncertain; it is filled with actors ready to mislead to gain short term advantage.  While I believe this to be a single act intended to force negotiations to conclusion that Russia, Turkey and Iran lead, I fear this also could spill over (certainly not by design) into a new more escalated conflict pitting regional, and global, powers against one another.  Trump has not inspired trust across his nation, much less the world. This action could magnify that distrust dramatically, or earn him respect. I fear the former is more likely.  Attacking Higher Education Kills More than Academic Freedom Michael D. Kennedy* The Hungarian government has proposed changes to its regulations on National Higher Education that may force Central European University (CEU), 25 years in Budapest, to end its work in its home city. To force that university into exile is not unprecedented, but such an attack is more consistent with authoritarianisms ignorant of education’s value than it is a country in the heart of the European Union. This attack on academic freedom follows an emergent pattern. This assault seems similar to the Russian authorities’ attack on European University St. Petersburg. There too, legislative changes with a façade of normality camouflage the intent to destroy the irritant authoritarians despise: thinking beyond legislated script. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also has closed universities in Turkey and detained tens of thousands of academics, activists, journalists and others who challenge his account of progress and threat.   It’s not surprising, however, that such leaders prefer obedience to the creative and critical thinking 21st century universities inspire. It should be inconceivable that the international community and societies themselves would tolerate pseudo-law without justice, a promise of order without promise of a future. Once upon a time not so long ago the West stepped up. In 2004, Aleksander Lukashenko of Belarus had had enough. Although European Humanities University (EHU) followed every appropriate law, the Belarusian president found the kinds of students with their refined critical thinking to be too much of a threat to abide in his nation. He proposed to move its change beginning with the forced resignation of this independent university’s president. Anatoli Mikhailov refused to step down, but the international community stepped up. EHU went into exile, supported by a range of donors across the democratic world, with exceptional support by and hospitality in Lithuania. That was more than a decade ago, and EHU still enjoys support from many despite the fact that nobody could have expected a university in exile would have to survive this long. What many could have thought then to be a blip on the screen of transition looks now like a harbinger of things to come not only in the authoritarian world but in the European Union itself. This cannot be. While the fate of a single university may seem small to a European Union and broader West with many great challenges - from Brexit to refugee crisis -- it is not. Breaking systems is the authoritarian’s way, so that only they can step up to fix the mess they made. In such fashion they prove their self-fulfilling foresight, and their self-understood indispensability. Breaking a university is clearly authoritarianism’s expression. Democracies of the world cannot tolerate this in a nation claiming membership in their association. Michael D. Kennedy is professor of sociology and international and public affairs at Brown University, the author of Globalizing Knowledge, and a member of the governing board of European Humanities University and the advisory board of the Open Society Foundations’ Higher Education Support Program. (March 2, 2017) “Trump’s Articulation of the Nation” http://www.rifuture.org/trumps-articulation-of-the-nation/ (I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017 at the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs) Trump’s Articulation of the Nation* Michael D. Kennedy Nationalism has many bad connotations, but at its root it is commonplace. Its ideology is simple: every nation deserves its own state, which in turn, enables that nation to fulfill its destiny while building on its history. Before it became punny, Craig Calhoun called nationalism the trump card of identities and ideologies. Trump articulated that vision last night while celebrating every nation’s right to “chart their own path”. As every nation, our nation is special, but perhaps a bit more special than others. By celebrating greatness, pride, and optimism as key ingredients of the enduring American spirit, the USA can lead the world, Trump suggested. That may be what Trump’s advisor had in mind when he declared earlier in the week at the CPAC meeting that the USA is “a nation with a culture and a reason for being.” Every nation may be special but the structure into which every nation pours its soul is relatively consistent. Those structures are, however, also always contradictory. The articulation of any nation has clear alternatives built within it whose mobilizations can ensure legitimacy or move its crisis. Both were present in Trump’s speech. When mobilizing nationalism, nearly every nation recognizes soldiers whose ultimate sacrifices seal the sanctity of the national bond. But moving a nation into unjust wars, or into bungled missions, can delegitimate a nation’s leadership. Ryan Owens’ martyrdom deserves mourning, but for just that reason, his father’s challenge to Trump is all the more powerful. Nationalism needs enemies to flourish, but how one names them is itself a choice. Bad Dudes might be good, for nobody I know belongs to that religion. Drug dealers and criminals are also relatively good enemies, but when it comes to gang members, it can get complicated. It’s not always easy to distinguish groups of Bad Dudes and people of color who congregate outside their homes. Indeed, when this discourse combines with mixed messages on deportation whose practice has already ruined families and communities, one can see why trust suffers. Trump also has embraced a position controversial among those with expertise and experience in international affairs: to name the enemy without “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. For the same reasons many Christians resent association with White Supremacists who terrorize communities of color, substantial parts of the Muslim world, and our own Muslim citizens and residents and their allies, find the problem to be in terror, not religion. But if you believe that the world approaches a clash between Christianity and Islam, as Trump Advisor Bannon is reputed to believe, the name is perfect. It mobilizes religious division magnificently. Racial division in American nationalism is harder to articulate. President Trump began his speech by recognizing African American history month, and speaks of civil rights in the language of educational choice. It’s clear that American nationalism cannot speak too crudely in racist terms to be legitimate, but it is clear that whiteness remains the race of reference. President Trump has cleaned up his language – when scripted he does not other people of color by marking them with “the” – the African Americans, for example. He would never speak of “the Whites” of course. Clearly it helps to follow the monitor when presenting a culturally complex message. It is also, however, an economically complex message. Where President Trump departs most from previous administrations is in his economic nationalism. It’s not too different from how I grew up in Bethlehem Pennsylvania, actually. Once the home of now bankrupt Bethlehem Steel, all classes working in the industry could not drive a foreign car. “Buy American” defined livelihoods. Of course neoliberalism’s globalization changed all that, diminishing the steel industry and other manufacturing sectors. President Trump mobilizes that resentment of decline with his own nationalism, focusing on unfair trading practices (while conveniently ignoring technological changes). Economic nationalism is not intrinsically wrong, but it is a lot more complex to manage than even health care reform, which the President now recognizes as rather complex. Even here, however, economic nationalism is not focused on lifting all boats in the national sea. While we all might benefit from rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure (state-led development!!!), those jobs building for the private sector are not so public. More clearly than anything else, the President’s promise to require American-made steel in building the pipelines that Native Americans, environmental activists and others opposed, and thought they stopped, is, to the say the least, contentious. In this case, instead of building a green economy dedicated to public health, Trump’s economic nationalism pits the hunger of (potentially) union labor looking for jobs against other American citizens who have risked much to defend their way of life, and the future for us all. Beneath every nationalism, then, is a choice about which nation is being celebrated. The trick of nationalism is to distract us from divisions of power and privilege and to declare that we all bleed red. That may be true, but it’s not at all clear that we all see truth (which, with liberty and justice, Trump claims to be the centerpiece of the American nation) in the same way. *At the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017. It clearly builds on my previous work on the sociology of the nation. (February 21, 2017) “The Conflicts and Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/conflicts-contradictions-trump-legitimation-crisis/ The Conflicts & Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis Michael D. Kennedy February 20, 2017 Not all contradictions accompanying President Trump’s governance magnify the legitimation crisis increasingly apparent. Some merely reinforce the cultural conflict that were apparent during the election itself, but others threaten the bedrock of his legitimacy. In particular, the crisis around Russia may erode the last vestiges of cultural authority buttressing his legal or institutional authority. Nevertheless, unless a broader coalition than those already in opposition act, Trump’s legitimation crisis could turn into an existential crisis for America. In what follows, I examine 6 conflicts shaping Trump’s legitimation crisis in order to consider how they could accumulate to risk the nation itself. Trump’s economic nationalism is his anchor, but its sustainability is not obvious. Made in America was a union slogan that neoliberals with their embrace of free trade and globalization thought an anachronism. Promising to build a new fleet of aircraft for America’s defense is one way to build a genuinely popular base among America’s labor unions and other workers. It’s not obvious, however, that such economic nationalism, beyond funding America’s military contractors, is sustainable. Not only are US retailers concerned, but GOP leaders beyond his inner circle no doubt worry about ensuing trade wars that could deflate the world economy. Civil and political opposition together with the courts defeated Trump’s Muslim Ban, but we are told he’s coming back with a more legally defensible executive action. If Trump’s new order meets legal requirements, Trump might regain some respect among those who still believe in the merits of the judicial branch. However, this reconstruction will do nothing to restore the damage done to our nation’s place vis-à-vis the Muslim world and for US citizens and residents with Muslim associations, their allies and those who depend on their labor and learning. Within Silicon Valley and among universities, not to mention those who fear religious hatred to be the foundation of real world apocalypse, Trump may never recover legitimate authority. However, the implementation of this ban would manifest the vision of a fundamental conflict between Christianity and Islam that the President’s Advisor, Steve Bannon, and his followers consider axiomatic of the age. With such policy, Trump secures another base of support, even if he undermines American security in the process. Deportation of the undocumented intensifies, and punishment for those who articulate sanctuary in policy and practice grows, but where this goes nobody knows. The escalation of deportation practice and accompanying GOP maneuvers in congress and the executive branch, even as some mayors and governors have declared their fundamental opposition, promise a measure of constitutional and real conflict America has not seen since desegregation. In this, we can see some of Putin’s playbook – as his own legitimacy suffered, he escalated conflict first in Chechnya and then in a subsequent decade Ukraine. Russia’s hybrid wars may find their replication in America, generating a hybrid civil war that Trump can use to consolidate his hold on power. He said he would bring law and order to America after all, but this time I fear law and order without cultural authority will induce real conflict in America itself. Attacks on the media as the enemy of the people magnifies a conflict that distracts from the growing legitimation crisis. Although Trump is notorious for his aggressive approach to the media, and even threats to individual journalists like Katy Tur, his performance in the so-called 2/17/17 press conference clarifies his method of governance. While he cannot deny the importance of a free press given its centrality to our constitutional makeup, he can reconstruct them not as a free press but as his political opposition and an enemy of the American people. This outrageous maneuver has moved some responsible Republicans, like John McCain, to protest but this is hardly enough to stew the legitimation crisis. After all, attacking the press also appeals to his base and is part of a longer range strategy to diminish critical reason and evidentiary arguments in our public sphere. This assault extends to all kinds of science too, most critically environmental science, where those who seek to undermine environmental protection come to be appointed to head the agency designed to protect it. I anticipate, further, that Trump will move environmentally hazardous projects ahead, around fracking and especially DAPL and Keystone, inviting ever more vigorous forms of civil resistance so as to prove that this is a political matter, not a scientific or moral one. Authority matters more than truthfulness in the Trump regime, which if triumphant, signals the dissolution of a free press no matter what its legal standing. The arrogance of Whiteness works to consolidate his base, until it winds up assaulting the self-understood moral integrity with which folks with racial privilege define themselves. When Trump asked April Ryan, an African American White House reporter to convene her friends in the Congressional Black Caucus (), Black folks and their allies can mark the racism, but they won’t be surprised given how such blatant condescension builds on patterns of recurrent Whiteness. Moving this story could mobilize Trump’s opposition, but even that will help to consolidate the base of his power because making America great again was, implicitly, about making America white again. Here again Bannon helps us see more clearly what is going on. While he himself might try to downplay the racist elements of his vision, he opens the space for just that resurgence when celebrating an era of American history known for its modern repression of civil rights struggles. When folks like Sherrilyn Ifill point today to Republican efforts to limit voting rights, or to the explicitly racist past of our now Attorney General, they do not undermine Trump’s base. The Trump administration’s racist supporters deny their whiteness with a wink and a mean nod to say we don’t need you folks because Democrats have you in their pocket anyway, and we have redrawn the electoral system to assure that white power will prevail regardless of your protest. “Know your place” helps to buttress Trump’s legal authority by invoking America’s founding racist culture. Of course we could imagine a different whiteness, one that recoils from, for example, such misogynistic and crude treatment of women as Trump has been known to practice, and even to crow about. Trump’s electoral support by white women proved otherwise, however. One could imagine that when that whiteness is combined with anti-Semitism, if not by Trump and his family but by his staff and their followers, a critical crack in the hegemony of Know-Nothing Whiteness begins to shine. That, however, may only bear critical fruit when explicitly linked to the rise of fascist movements across the world. The implication of Russia in the US election and Trump’s vision of a new world order is the accelerator of legitimation crisis. America First does not only recall the spirit of American anti-Semitism, but it also evokes the message of resurgent nationalisms across the world, beginning first and foremost with Putin’s leadership in Russia. Although his regime has not been directly implicated in the rise of all of the other nationalist populist regimes in Europe, from Orban in Hungary to the Kaczynski-directed regime in Poland, Putin’s influence on Brexit, and now in French elections, is popularly known. All these nationalist expressions will do more than illuminate a racist mirror: they will move the world toward increased violence within and across nations. Of course that is speculation and Trump’s resemblance to such figures is not an impeachable offense. But wondering about how much Putin is tied to Trump’s election, how many of Trump’s advisors and families are implicated in Russian affairs, and how Russian interests are implicated in the rise of Trump and his policies today, is Trump’s greatest point of vulnerability. Of course to discover certain ties could border on, if not define, treason itself. With concerns for his and his family’s violation of the constitution’s emoluments clause, that might be enough. But the key problem may be his own arrogance; Trump appears to believe he is only accountable to himself, and to the people as he defines the people, which means only those who support him, those who are nice to him. By refusing to be transparent in his dealings with Russia, he only increases suspicion and doubt. That, in turn, creates the possibility for some Republicans, the intelligence community, and those for whom defense of the constitution and sensible policy trumps partisanship or presidential servility, to join together and investigate to whom he is accountable. A public and bipartisan investigation of the ties of Trump, his business and his electoral team to Russia during the election is critical to restoring the possibility of Trump’s legitimacy in America. We know Putin is only accountable to Putin. To the extent Trump takes that page from Putin’s script his presidency will fail. It is, however, important to keep in mind that Trump’s legitimation crisis is not necessarily America’s legitimation crisis. America is more than those who defend Know Nothing white supremacy fostering a Holy War with Islam and a civil war with communities defending families and neighborhoods from the terror of deportation run amok. Trump’s legitimation crisis could, however, become America’s existential crisis if Americans of intellectual and political responsibility don’t come together to see the catastrophe Trump sows, and to figure the constitutional means to stop it now. (February 15, 2017) “The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America Michael D. Kennedy February 14, 2017 In this moment, we fix on Mike Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor. Speculation flies as to why this happened. Officially, it is because he lied to Vice President Pence, putting the latter into a position of lying to the public about the substance of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador while Obama was still president. Some speculate that Flynn was forced out only because the Washington Post was about to publish a story about it. But the crisis is far deeper than personal betrayal or managerial incompetence in the White House. Legitimation Crisis brews. The term evokes the German philosopher and sociologist Jurgen Habermas and his 1975 book of that title. We are not in what Habermas would call a system crisis, where the demands of the system are incompatible and can’t be hierarchically integrated. The crisis is much more cultural because such a large portion of the US public doesn’t believe Trump is legitimate. And that portion will grow. Of course some believe the presidential election was rigged, but many more people believe that Trump’s legitimacy suffers because his excesses have not been tamed by the awesomeness of the presidential office itself. He is, rather, tarnishing it with his own arrogance and refusal to be treated like other presidents (releasing taxes and divesting assets), and with his own incompetence in managing not only world and national affairs but even his own staff. Most people probably still want to believe Trump’s authority legitimate, but I think that teeters on the edge. In order to be prepared for the coming full scale legitimation crisis, we need to anticipate that moment when Trump might have legal authority, but will lack the cultural authority to exercise it. The crisis has its roots in the occasionally overt but always subliminally present resurgent whiteness and misogyny of Trump’s candidacy and early administration. We all know too well how grabbing private parts, the Wall, the Ban, and the know-nothing failure to see the danger of embracing white supremacists have communicated to many which citizens count, and how others need to explain why they need to be respected in Trump’s America. Trump won the election, however, and with that victory, the chance for the Republican Party to realize many of its dreams, from an assault on environmental regulations to a new Supreme Court Majority that could, ultimately, overturn US policy on women’s reproductive rights. In the run-up to the inauguration, Republicans consolidated Trump’s victory with their own declarations of respect, despite the alienation and disgust so many articulated during the primaries and even the general election. Republicans are increasingly likely to see, however, that they are tying both their individual and Party futures to a ship whose reckless captain believes it can survive any glancing blow from only the apparent iceberg. They could just grab lifeboats, but they will increasingly see that they are too far from safe shores. I anticipate that they will decide that they need to take command of the vessel to steer it away from a cascading legitimation crisis. Of course that, itself, builds on more enduring inequities of America. Many have long criticized the biases of the rule of law in the US, where for the wealthy and white one set of rules and punishments exist, and for people of color and those without legal counsel and tax accountants at the ready, another set rules. Trump’s behavior is making this explicit, and leading not just radicals but many leading American politicians to openly defy how the law is made. Consider how the struggle over sanctuary cities and forced deportations is playing out. Second, anticipate an increasingly overt contest for authority within the Trump administration between Trump’s ideologues and those who have served both Republican and Democratic administrations, notably so many former military officers who now lead many offices. While they may have preferred Republican administrations, they respected the rule of law and their oath to defend the constitution above all else. With so many constitutional violations charged, from concerns over emoluments to treason itself, these generals and others may have to choose their loyalties to Trump or to Constitution. And even if they do not perceive a choice, the public just might. I frankly cannot see how the brewing legitimation crisis will do anything other than worsen along these two lines and others. Two things could avert this disaster, however. The first is an even greater disaster. We know from history how authoritarians stage, or manipulate, violent crisis to arrogate greater power. Whether in the assault on the German Reichstag in 1933 or the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002, legitimation crisis can be repressed by declaring the security of the state to be at risk. When Stephen Miller, the White spokesperson, insisted that the authority of the president “will not be questioned”, too many felt an authoritarian chill in the air. The second will be a temporary crisis, but it will demonstrate the resilience of our democratic institutions. That momentary crisis will take place with the impeachment, or the voluntary resignation, of Donald Trump. Vice President Pence has many detractors, but he has the political experience, and perhaps mental balance, to recognize that the USA heads toward a legitimation crisis from which it will not recover without a reset of national solidarity on far more inclusive and mutually respectful democratic foundations. It’s hard to be confident about the likelihood of any of these scenarios. But as a testament of the times, I can’t imagine a smooth extension of the present into the future. That future cannot digest the deepening legitimation crisis facing our nation. (February 3, 2017) “On Explaining Trump in the World: In Response to Maria Eugenia Plano and Paula Lugones” portions of this response can be found in Spanish in this interview: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/comportamiento-erratico-magnate-domesticado_0_SyovmDCdx.html “On Explaining Trump in the World” Michael D. Kennedy February 3, 2017 The election of Donald Trump was a surprise for many scholars and election commentators. His performance as President does not change previously held assessments of his character and competence. It does change, however, how we need to think about the US in the world and of the role of its president. If Trump’s ambition were to create greater uncertainty across the world, he has succeeded. His telephone manners, his disinterest in consistency, and the license he gives to those around him to formulate US policy contrary to their president’s own statements are not at all consistent with previous US presidents. He is unprecedented, which means the rest of the world, and the US public itself, need to figure out what he brings to US leadership. I have three accounts -- one flattering, one sobering, and one frightening. Some like to believe that Trump is a master negotiator, and that he tweets or otherwise declares outrageous positions so that subsequent positions, even if still problematic, lead everyone to relief. To threaten trade war with Mexico and insist on the wall is outrageous, but the threat may have been enough to get some US-based corporations to reconsider their foreign direct investment. Simply, he is wild and unpredictable because it improves his room for maneuver. But this flattering portrait depends on our belief that he knows what he is doing. I don’t think he does. It’s sobering to consider that Trump is, perhaps, just too simple minded. The world is far more complex than a theory knit from his practice allows. First, he gives no evidence of understanding how the global economy and sovereignty work together. For example, it’s actually hard to define when a car is made in the US given the spread of the car parts supply chain. When does that import tax happen then? It does not seem, either, that he understands diplomacy at all – threatening and insulting allies is not a good way to assure enduring and deep partnerships. How can you propose appointing to the European Union an ambassador who proposes that he might contribute to the EU in a way similar to how he helped the Soviet Union? He likes to claim that he helped the USSR break apart. Secretary of Defense Mattis has to reassure Japanese and South Korean allies that the USA is really with them, contrary to their Trump-induced anxiety; that suggests that the role of Mattis and others with some gravitas is to be the adults in the White House as the adolescent plays with his twitter. My final account is frightening. I have previously identified Trump with Putin and Brexit as examples of Übermensch Escapism, in which its proponents argue that strength and bold actions are what’s need to address intractable problems. By breaking the system, they argue, one might begin to fix the problem. Putin has done that with his attacks on Ukraine, Brexit has done that with the vote to leave the EU, and Trump’s behavior indicates that he is willing to break all sorts of American institutions, practices, and alliances to “solve” the problem that led his voters to elect him. Some thought that we could be witnessing a new Axis or Alliance, with Putin, leaders like Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey, and Trump consolidating a new vision of the world, where might makes right and liberalism becomes anachronism. This, I believe, is wrong. I frankly think this final, frightening account is the most likely, but it is also the most unstable because it depends on increasing unpredictability. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s denunciation of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine completely surprised me, even if I also welcomed this recognition of the Russian violation of global norms with that invasion. But that’s the problem with Übermensch Escapism. I fear Trump’s erratic behavior, something many hoped would be tamed by the weight of the Oval Office, will not go away. I anticipate that if it continues on this level, or even grows worse, a group of responsible Republicans, alongside Democrats, will move to impeach him. That will certainly be good for the GOP if they do. I just hope that his unpredictability does not lead us to war beyond our borders, or to an escalation of distrust if not also of violence within our borders, before he is forced out of office. But there he goes again, lowering the bar of my expectations. Should I just be happy if no more blood is spilt by his erraticism even if he continues to break the institutions of the world whose transformation might actually deliver fairness and justice, or even survival given the threat of climate change? Predictions are too risky in the Time of Trump, for he has surprised all of us many times already. But we need to prepare for the worst, and a worst that is beyond our sober imagination. (January 30, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #MuslimBan in Providence Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-the-muslimban/#.WJUw2rYrK8o Love, Solidarity & the #MuslimBan in Providence, Rhode Island Michael D. Kennedy January 30, 2017 Some 2,000 people from Providence, Rhode Island & environs assembled in the same place the #WomensMarch had gathered 8 days prior, this time to denounce Donald Trump’s Executive Order on immigration, effectively known in this community, and across the US and the world, as the #MuslimBan. The assembly reflected so many layers of cultural politics, love and solidarity that an ethnographic moment cannot capture. But it is clear that, in the historical sociological sense, these protests are eventful, and redefining the meaning of Trump’s presidency already. There is an overwhelming sense of momentum. Although the size of the protest was probably less than half of what it was for the #WomensMarch, many showed up on a chilly overcast day for an event only planned the night before.. Too, this protest felt less celebratory of friends and community, and more determined. Anger was more palpable. As before, Rhode Island’s governor, Gina Raimondo, was there, declaring that the whole state stood opposed to such policies as this #MuslimBan; her words were even more emphatic this time. The Providence Mayor, Jorge Elorza, himself the son of Dominican immigrants, declared that this would be a sanctuary city. But the order of address also changed. While the governor began the speeches last weekend, the first elected official to step up was State Senator Jeanine Calkin, one of those whose support for a political revolution in Rhode Island life moved her to unseat a more conventional Democrat in 2016. Her prominence in the speakers’ lineup was also more immediately deserved here, as she was among those who started planning the event at 6 pm on the previous night. She also articulated a recurring theme. She recalled her grandfather’s Jewish family in Czechoslovakia and those who died due to hate; these times reminded her of a letter from a relative who tried to get him to America, but who ultimately failed. This memory of loss in her own family moves her, with this #MuslimBan, to anger today. State Representative Aaron Regunberg evoked a similar story about his own Jewish ancestors fleeing genocide as reason for why Rhode Island must be a sanctuary for all now. Rabbi Michelle Dardashti of the Brown-Rhode Island School of Design Hillel also spoke of Jewish antecedents -- her own Iranian ties would have meant that she, too, would have been excluded from sanctuary were she seeking it in the USA in these times. The significance of solidarity was a more general, and prominent, theme. The Reverend Doctor Don Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, was one of the first speakers. After distancing himself, and the event, from the very few hateful signs present, Anderson declared that this was a movement of love, even while also a struggle against evil. “The #MuslimBan is evil,” he said simply, directly, powerfully. Religiosity was in full evidence on this day, but Muslims were less prominent among the speakers. However, Mufti Ikram Ul Haq from the Rhode Island Council for Mutual Advancement emphasized, as so many Muslims are obliged to do in public in these times, not only the importance of love and solidarity, but also of learning. He seemed to trust that learning about Islam could help quell the hate mobilizing not only such executive orders as Trump’s but also such attacks like those we saw in Quebec on that same day. Especially in contrast to its opponents, it’s striking just how much this movement celebrating religious tolerance and diversity believes in the power of learning over the ignorance of smug assertion. While the assembly was in part about the solidarity of Rhode Island, of its civil society and of its political society, of its Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others, against hate, against the #MuslimBan, it was also about a political movement. That was evident for its organizers: Resist Hate Rhode Island and the Working Families Party. These movements, while often identified with Bernie Sanders and his political revolution, have a longer, and more diverse, genealogy. For example, the day’s first speaker, Laufton Ascencao-Longo, is not only associated with both movements, but also worked on progressive politics and movements in Providence and in Pittsburgh in particular, but as well across the country, before Sanders launched his campaign. In fact, the new coalition is quite broad. Ascencao-Longo told me: “The new people, energy, and organizers that are emerging now are genuinely both Hillary and Bernie supporters.” Many of the folks at the demonstration were already planning to spend part of their time together on that Sunday even before the #MuslimBan wreaked its havoc on social ties and national security. Following the protest at the Capitol, and a Saturday meeting in nearby Warwick filled with many who challenged his partial accommodation of Trump http://www.rifuture.org/whitehouse-resist-trump/, the junior Senator from Rhode Island Sheldon Whitehouse faced still more criticism on Sunday. Led to march by the exceptional rhythms of the Extraordinary Rendition Band, hundreds moved from the State Capitol to Nathan Bishop Middle School to challenge the Senator at one of his community meetings. Protesters claimed that Whitehouse is often an ally, and they expected him to “lead the resistance in Washington.” Yet the senator’s vote in support of Mike Pompeo’s appointment as CIA Director is the signal issue demonstrating his failure on these terms. “You can’t normalize these appointments”, said a voice from the crowd. By meeting’s end, he read off the list of Trump’s cabinet appointments he will not support: Treasury, Education, State, Attorney General, EPA director (“really big no”), Labor. He still needs to talk with Wilbur Ross, candidate for Secretary of Commerce, however. The terms of love and solidarity in opposition cannot mean the absence of conflict and disagreement within that opposition. It ought lead us to rethink what solidarity means. While Trump’s solidarity may insist on a vision of America based on whiteness and loyalty to a leader, the solidarity in opposition looks quite different. The diversity of experiences, perspectives, and political understandings are manifest in this opposition, which includes not only the six elected leaders who spoke (Congressman David Cicilline and General Treasurer Seth Magaziner also addressed the demonstration) but the variety of civil society organizations mobilizing from below. Beyond the movements organizing the protest and mentioned above, speakers on the Capitol Steps included those from the Islamic School of Rhode Island, Prysm, The Fang Collective and The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island, The Step Up Network and DARE, Ahope, and the Community Safety Act Coalition. There are clear differences among those who spoke, and among those who protest, but those differences need to be worked out deliberatively, even if inevitably, with passion. Democracy is not for the faint of heart, nor for those emboldened by the authoritarian personality. Contests between civil society activists and political legislators are not always easy, by any means. But they are evidence of a vital democracy. Life in Providence over the first days of the Trump administration suggest very clearly why the chant, “This Is What Democracy Looks Like!” grows in meaning, and also power, in Rhode Island. (January 22, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-and-the-womensmarch/#.WJUwnLYrK8o “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” Prepared for, and forthcoming in, Public Seminar Michael D. Kennedy On January 21, 2017 many of us followed the Extraordinary Rendition Band and their spirited version of “When the Saints Go Marching In” onto the Rhode Island State Capitol grounds. Friendships were evident in groups arriving, or in spontaneous meetings. I met Justine Brown and 2 year old Felicity on arrival, and saw later on social media post Kathryn Dunkelman’s daughter holding a compelling “girl power” sign. These friendship networks were an obvious social foundation for this huge (7500 person) assembly for the smallest state in the union. As Norwegian social anthropologist Marte Knudsen remarked, Mother Nature also seemed to be our friend, appreciating the spirit of the gathering. It was an unseasonably warm and sunny day. The event itself was led by longtime organizer Shanna Wells working both backstage and as emcee for speakers. Governor Gina Raimondo was the first speaker of the 2.5 hour series, in which she declared that she was fired up to defend “our core values” against any assault by the new president. She was followed by Nellie Gorbea, the first Latina to be elected to a state-wide office in New England. Other elected figures followed, including Aaron Regunberg, a founder of Resist Hate RI and Marcia Ranglin-Vassel, a Jamaican immigrant and school teacher whose victory in the 2016 election was evidence of the Bernie Sanders-inspired movement in Rhode Island. The presence of so many elected officials marks the difference from the anti-political Occupy Movement. While both are expressions of resistance, today’s movement in Rhode Island seeks political power, and for some, political revolution. But the Women’s March in Rhode Island was also about civil society. Young women from high school also spoke on stage; a sophomore from Classical High School, Ida Jimenez, spoke of her empowerment through Young Voices. Shirley Lomba Correia, a union member with SEIU, spoke of unions’ importance now. LGBTQ activist Kate Monteiro declared that we, inferring those present on the capitol grounds but also among the millions marching across the nation and the world, were the majority. The spirit of this gathering was joyful and loving. When the Extraordinary Rendition Band offered their musical chant “We don't want your tiny hands anywhere near our underpants", spirits were uplifted, but not with meanness. When a young woman fell ill on stage, several came to the stage to help, and the crowd cleared the way for her mother to come. When a young disturbed man ambled through the crowd shouting “Trump Pence”, elder escorts followed him to be sure that his angry affect would not diminish with a violent confrontation the love so evident in the crowd. The solidarity of this gathering was not based on homogeneity by any means. The diversity of backgrounds, of priorities, of political views, was clear among speakers and in the public, and so apparent in in the poetic rallying cry of the event itself. But that diversity did not diminish solidarity. It deepened it. Rhode Island was clearly part of the global wave signaling an embrace of truthfulness and love in the now, and for the future. Hope, Rhode Island’s motto, was felt in our bones. It was an event of transformational solidarity. (December 29, 2016) “On Democracy in Poland 2016: In Response to Dario Mizrahi” portions of this response are found in http://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2016/12/31/crece-la-alarma-en-europa-por-un-pais-que-se-desliza-hacia-al-autoritarismo/ On Democracy in Poland 2016 – In Response to Dario Mizrahi December 29, 2016 Michael D. Kennedy DM: “In recent months, there have been growing accusations that the Law and Justice Party's government is taking steps against democracy in Poland. What is true of these allegations? In what ways is democracy being endangered?” Various academics and organizations apply scales of more and less democracy; Freedom House in 2016 identified Poland as one of 7 consolidated democracies among postcommunist countries (https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2016). As Hungary already has, Poland may lose that status in 2017 given what has been happening since the election, first, of Law and Justice (PiS acronym in Polish) Party candidate Andrzej Duda as president in May 2015, and then of PIS itself to an absolute majority in the October 2015 parliamentary elections. For the first time in Polish postcommunist history, one party controls both executive and legislative branches of government, and is using that power to complete the revolution against communism that they believed was never, quite, finished. Their methods, the European Commission and others warn, endanger democracy. That worry has been in the global press, and Poland’s liberal press, since the start of 2016. In this sense, worries over democracy’s endangerment are not new; but it is also clear that those who worry are not taking comfort with what has been happening in Poland over the last month. The European Commission declared first in July 2016 and then again in December that “there is a systemic threat to the rule of law in Poland”, above all with regard to the independence of the judiciary (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-4476_en.htm), the branch of government over which PiS does not hold decisive control. In particular, while finding the previous government’s last attempt to stack the Constitutional Tribunal wrong, the EC mainly criticizes the PiS government’s refusal to seat those legally nominated to the body and its refusal to allow the publication, much less enforcement, of its decisions. Democracy is thus, at risk, when it comes to the rule of law in Poland. But democracy’s fulfillment goes well beyond this, of course. Sociologist Charles Tilly (Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 2007: 59.) characterized democracy as “political relations between the state and its citizens featuring broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation”. PiS is diminishing democracy in this broad sense too. PiS has most recently sought to restrict journalists’ access to the Polish parliament, arguing that the latter has abused its privilege. But this action has also led to substantial protest by civil society organizations in December. The Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KoD in Polish acronym) is the most visible organization articulating protest. In this sense, democracy is being revitalized because political participation beyond institutional channels grows. Protest by civil society is vigorous. Defending democracy stimulates democracy, and not only over procedure, but also over basic rights. PiS, given its substantial adherence to a particularly conservative kind of Catholicism (one not very friendly to Pope Francis), has sought to introduce even more restrictive terms on abortion. This too inspired substantial protest in 2016. PiS is looking for ways to diminish this civil society protest. They have considered introducing restrictions on public association and protest. But as in the abortion bill, they have backed off from this ambition given the measure of protest in the country. They will, however, likely try to introduce restrictions on both in 2017. PiS continues to look for ways to extend its administrative control over the country. They have most recently proposed new methods for appointing heads and deputies of more than 100 state-run research institutes so that they might pick “their own” scholars and administrators without competitive review, following a method they already used in appointing leaders of civil service and state media organizations earlier in the year. Finally, we should not only mark PiS power with what its critics call its authoritarian tendencies. It has embarked on various anti-austerity policies, or at least rhetoric, that promises to empower those who feel like they have lost in Poland’s neoliberal embrace. Most notably, as an extension of their “pro-family” Catholic politics, they have initiated a subsidy to families who have more than 2 children. Whether, and for how long, that subsidy is economically feasible is up for debate. But it is one guarantor of PiS popularity in their constituency. DM: Why is the Law and Justice Party's government taking these allegedly authoritarian measures? How far can they go with these policies? PiS draws most of its support from the poorer and more rural parts of the country, which also are more likely to have more conservative religious views. Their election in 2015 was not by any means destined; it was, rather, a contingent outcome. But they work now to consolidate their influence and power for simple political reasons, on the one hand, and on the other, for their own ideals and their own alliances. They believe that previous governments used the levers of power to assure their own vision of Poland, one that is more liberal, European, and urban, and willing to compromise truth. For example, when the PiS Party leader’s twin brother, then President Lech Kaczynski, was killed along with more than 100 others in a plane crash in Smolensk, they believe that the liberal government colluded with Putin to hide the real reason for the crash. Martyrdom, on the one hand, and conspiracy theories, on the other, move True Poles’ passions to find real justice. It’s hard to know how far PiS can go. PiS has backed down from some of its most outrageous legislative proposals under the pressure of civil society’s protest. But it has refused to buckle to EU pressure as well, standing firm in its commitment to diminish the Constitutional Tribunal’s authority and independence. That, in the end, is the real prize for both sides in this contest. If PiS can crush the Tribunal’s legal autonomy, it can set in motion rules that will take another revolution to overturn. However, PiS itself does not appear to have the calculating capacity for introducing the same measure of authoritarian rule as Hungary’s Orban has. PiS makes stupid mistakes. For example, the PiS leadership, in order to avoid novel forms of protest by its political opposition earlier in December, moved the vote on the budget outside the voting chamber, violating the constitution in the process. This, and other poorly considered legislation and practice, is inexplicable if you believe PiS to be mainly calculating. I rather think PiS is enacting a familiar script in Polish history – that it is a martyr for the nation, and will do what is right despite what those who are not truly Polish, whether because they are European or cosmopolitan, demand. And here, violent confrontations, regardless of who initiates them, seem to me inevitable. PiS is, simply, not powerful or competent enough to complete its revolution, on the one hand, and not pragmatic enough to plan for the long run. DM: What can the European Union do if the conflict in Poland gets worse? Do you think it may take any drastic decision or is it very difficult for that to happen? I therefore expect that the conflict in Poland will get worse, but I also expect that the European Union will itself lose coherence evermore. With Trump’s election in the US, EU values are at risk. Trump has more in common with Hungary’s Orban, who has already promised to veto any attempt to sanction Poland for “systemic threat to the rule of law’. The EU will not, cannot, do enough to threaten PiS. But to threaten PiS with sanctions could help consolidate PiS’s Eurosceptic popularity in Poland. The only hope on the horizon I can see will be that the incompetence and contradictoriness of the PiS alliance will alienate their own base. If the opposition can recover its sense, and find a new political voice emerging from the KoD alliance, I can see a way out. But for now, I see no good and obvious roads away from increasing political confrontation in Poland. I just hope it doesn’t turn violent. (November 22, 2016) “Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump” http://www.rifuture.org/recurrent-and-resurgent-whiteness-in-the-time-of-trump/ Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy November 22, 2015 Vibha Pinglé, one of my friends, challenged the white men in her FB audience to take the same responsibility for white nationalists as so many Americans demanded “good Muslims” challenge those who killed the innocent in the name of Islam. Other friends asked the white men in their FB communities to explain how it was that their demographic could justify embracing such a violent, message against women, LGBTQ folks, people of color. They challenged us to explain the whiteness fueling such hate. Interest in explaining whiteness has been surging. Even before Trump was elected, the work of J.D.Vance, Arlie Hochschild, and others was being discussed in earnest, knowing that Trump was mobilizing a sense of whiteness that the “liberal media” overlooked. Sociology, history and other disciplines have long been interested in the history and constitution of whiteness, but more typically as an expression of power, not as an invitation to empathy. While I appreciate that latter disposition, a more critical take on whiteness feels even more important with white nationalists so close to power. Whiteness as power, however, is not just evident in the extreme; it is embedded in the political system. Look, for example at how the electoral college enhanced white power despite the majority of the electorate voting against Trump. We thus need to see white nationalists as an extension of everyday whiteness too. Resurgent whiteness rests on recurrent whiteness. But that is not easy for white liberals to embrace. Even for those white folks who acknowledge that there can be racism without racists, white privilege enables us to believe that we good whites are not part of that racist system. We resent the notion that we are somehow connected to the vile, to the fascist, to the misogynist wrapped up in a white power and privilege of which we are part. We take offense when we are reminded of this by people of color. We easily retreat from engagement with genuinely hurt feelings. That pain is hard for people of color, and especially folks at risk of real injury as the undocumented are, to accept as meaningful. Even for the white anti-racist, then, solidarity demands a certain kind of emotional resilience to carry on in terms that mark the salience of white supremacy. It’s much easier to hang with Bernie Sanders. The campaign Bernie Sanders ran shows the promise of a class-based, progressive, populist movement, a political revolution as he called it. Remember, we are told, he beat Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin, two of the states Clinton lost to Trump. His campaign, and his more recent statements, also show the limits of such an approach to America however. He lost the primary, in part, because he could not talk about class and racial injustices with equal facility. We might anticipate younger political activists and public intellectuals to manage that more readily, especially with folks like Heather McGhee and Ian Haney-Lopez providing the frame. But I’m afraid that is not the lesson recurrent whiteness is developing in response to resurgent whiteness. So many of my white friends, as well as prominent white folks who enjoy a conversation with an Ivy League professor, tell me to read Mark Lilla’s piece. While Clinton may have been lacking in a variety of ways, they say, it was the Democratic Party’s embrace of identity politics that fueled the white identity politics behind Trump’s victory. Let’s get back to the politics that unite us, and stop the politics that divide us and fuel racism, they imply. I’m still white enough to be surprised by this implicit politics of blaming people of color for Trump’s election. Most folks without this whiteness are not so surprised, however. They are likely to resonate with the disgust Shaun King and others have for this assignment as just more of the same. It’s easy for white liberals to be outraged by Trump’s justifications for appointing folks associated with manifest racism to positions of authority; in this solidarity across racial divides is easily found. But when we argue so much against identity politics, when we emphasize just how much empathy we need for those white folks who supported Trump, resurgent whiteness and recurrent whiteness find common ground. When we define the assault on Native Americans at Standing Rock as a riot, when we overlook the power of sanctuary as an expression of decency and mutuality, whiteness shows its true color. Solidarity around liberal democratic values is not enough to transcend the weight of whiteness in defining power and privilege in these times. Transformative solidarity demands a vision and practice of racial justice in the articulation of that future we wish to see. That solidarity demands a variety of forms of resilience, just as it demands a new politics of inclusion unburdened by whiteness but with white folks there too. That transformative solidarity movement won’t happen if the color line continues to define democracy, and especially if it divides the democratic opposition to this authoritarianism cresting on white supremacy’s wave. (November 11, 2016) “Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump” http://policytrajectories.asa-comparative-historical.org/2016/11/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/#more-546 an extended version: http://www.rifuture.org/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/ Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy November 11, 2016 Three sensibilities of solidarity sweep America, but we need a fourth. Solidarity as Electoral Democracy is apparent in the graciousness of Secretary Clinton’s concession speech, President Obama’s report on his conversation with President-Elect Trump, and in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s heard in calls to give Trump a chance to become presidential, with the difference between his tweets last night and this morning to evidence that he might honor his pledge to be President of all Americans. Solidarity in opposition is readily evident among all those find in Trump’s victory proof of white supremacy as America’s foundation and who mount demonstrations to declare he is not our president. Solidarity as dialogue was manifest in the tough conversation among Michael Moore, Eddie Glaude, Jr. and Anand Giridharadas this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Michael explained how the liberal elite didn’t get those who wore ball caps, Eddie explained how Michael didn’t acknowledge the deep racial animus in this election, and Anand explained that the Midwest needed to meet Manhattan halfway in mutual curiosity. Solidarity depends on all three, but it can’t work if it is limited to these as choices. We need this fusion, and to learn from these different expressions of solidarity in order to build a fourth. Acknowledge that Trump’s campaign has made people fear for their lives, their ways of being, their rights. When white folks see “What a privilege it must be to look past Trump’s racism because it won’t ever affect you”, or when straight folks, citizens, men, and others privileged in our society see something similarly challenging, recognize it’s not necessarily about you. It rather poses this question: how will you use your privilege in solidarity with those legitimately fearful, and already hurt by this election and the hate that it has made legitimate. Second, hear those from the Midwest, and other rural areas, saying that they felt abandoned by the liberal elite. Moore rightly mentioned that Flint fell off the mass media’s attention once President Obama drank water from the tap and said everything would be alright. The Democratic Party establishment has abandoned those it feels captured by Republicans, and has taken constituencies of color for granted. In this, all of those disenfranchised by this current party system are alienated, and need a political revolution to feel like they matter. This is not a revolution, however, based on listening more carefully and improving dialogue. People are suffering, and find little value in philosophical celebrations of dialogue’s importance. Solidarity begins with recognizing others’ conditions of life, and offering more than reassurance that they matter. Putting bodies and other material resources on the line counts. But with whom do we develop this solidarity? Donnie Radcliffe, one of my Midwestern friends, asked that coastal elites recognize the legitimate disaffections of rural folks. Fair enough. But I suggested that we might develop a solidarity that transcends the rural/urban divide by building on a solidarity movement that already exists: the solidarity at Standing Rock in opposition to a corporate elite that has captured state power to move against sacred lands and life giving waters. That’s harder than it sounds, however, for you are asking white folks to reframe with whom they have interests in common. It means moving directly against white supremacy in defining rights to natural resources. As soon as I invoke white supremacy or privilege, however, I immediately betray the solidarity accent with which I think we need start. And for the folks I know who begin there, I also know that’s not the only language they speak. Acknowledging that enduring injustice is a way to articulate the solidarity that enables us to mark other injustices. And that’s why these demonstrations are so important. Like those who protest, I fear this election has destroyed the checks and balances that enable those who don’t share my privilege to feel any modicum of security in Trump’s America. These demonstrations are the signal to Trump, and they will grow louder if he cannot hear, that it’s not his presidential authority or personal magnanimity that will make him president of all Americans. If he does not respect the rights of those who reside among us, he will not be able to govern. It’s not the legislative gridlock that President Obama faced in Washington. It’s civil society roadblock that will define what democracy is about. This America that did not elect Trump will not allow the pundits to say that democracy has spoken and that we must now respect the office of the President, that we must come together to celebrate Trump’s America. Those pundits don’t know what democracy is at root. Democracy is rather about the degree to which “political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected, and mutually binding consultation.” The solidarity of opposition knows this, and is expressing it on the streets. If President Trump does not respect this democracy, solidarity will be rearticulated and grow in opposition. At the same time, those in opposition must also struggle to articulate a solidarity that denies the racism Trump has embodied and has mobilized. It’s not entirely a dialogue of mutuality, however, for it needs begin with recognizing the racism that has defined America, and then we can talk, too, about rustbelt and rural disenfranchisement that has not been acknowledged by “liberal media”. We need build a fourth solidarity with both those recognitions at heart. That means that we need focus on the democracy we want, not the democracy that won. America cannot become great again for that expresses racism resurgent. America might only become great if a new solidarity that respects us all can be found. I can’t see Trump managing that. But I can see America realizing that if those who have taught me about the disenfranchisement of so many come together to articulate a Solidarity that is to come. We need a Transformational Solidarity. (November 9, 2016) “Call It By Its Name” (on the Trump Victory) in http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident The First 100 Days of the Trump Regime http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident Michael D. Kennedy November 9, 2016 I can’t begin with President Trump’s first 100 days. I have to start with the American public’s first 100 days in a Trump regime. I have already written about the danger of Trump as candidate. With his consolidated power, American checks and balances can’t be found in its branches of government. They must be found in the morality of those charged to execute policies (think Hannah Arendt), and in the capacities of civil society to resist injustice. Both must begin with naming the problem. Last year, I branded both Brexit and Trump as Übermensch Escapism, forms of problem solving based on adoration of Putin-like strong man leadership. But it’s even clearer now on what that strength depends: white supremacy laced with misogyny, nativism, heterosexism, and more. In his proposed policies and actual rhetorics, Trump performed a measure of exclusionary politics that led many to label it fascist. While President Elect Trump has promised to be president of all the people, I don’t know why I should trust him to do that. I would rather civil society figure ways to defend itself, and its most vulnerable members, from what Trump has promised in his campaign, and demonstrated in his practice. We need a movement of solidarity that will defend human rights and social justice against a Trump regime that came to power despite the clear majority of people of color, and their allies, voting against him. What is President – Elect Trump’s mission in his first 100 days, or even now? Dismantle White Supremacy. If that’s beyond Presidential power, start by naming the problem. The above replaced that immediately following based on the erroneous assumption that Hillary Clinton would be our next president. Solidarity in America Michael D. Kennedy November 8, 2016 I write on the morning of November 8, 2016 assuming that the opinion polls I follow are right and that I discuss President Clinton’s first 100 days. It’s also anxiety. I can’t imagine Trump’s first 100 days. She has declared that jobs, clean energy, and immigration reform are on the front burner; getting out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and dealing with student debt better might keep those seeking political revolution in line. But she needs more than enact policy wonk consciousness. She needs Soul. I don’t mean religion. And I don’t mean music, and certainly not more ads with Katy Perry. We need a new kind of solidarity in America. We need to go beyond rituals that remind us of when some stand and others kneel; to enact practices that not only bind us together, but enable us to engage our differences; to design our institutions to cultivate mutual care, not to destroy those already suffering. President Clinton needs think not only about policy, but performativity. She needs address not only inequality but also inclusion. She needs enact not only justice, but also solidarity. And it can’t just be her. (October 10, 2016) “The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump” RI Future The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump Michael D. Kennedy October 10, 2016 Available in RI Future The candidacy of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States finds daily a new road to Hell, and threatens to drag the nation, and the world, down with it. I wrote what follows before I watched the debate on October 9. Nothing in that disgusting spectacle changes my sense. I will, however, offer some concluding remarks about how the debate shapes my interpretation of the cultural political landscape in which this spectacle took place. Trump is in a tailspin. An Open Letter from Some Angry Women spelled out the list of affronts from Trump’s lips that have defined his campaign. His disgusting 2005 quotation led a number of Republicans to withdraw their endorsement, at last. Republicans are right to worry about the effects of a Presidential Election day debacle for their down ballot contests, and now they scramble to save their own, personal, electoral futures. But more is going down in flames than a few Senate chances. The defining GOP alliance of evangelicals and free market advocates was already on shaky ground given that Trump is neither devout nor a believer in regulation by market. He believes in strong men being able to rewrite the rules of bankruptcy in order to make a buck and stiff the schmuck. Of course we all know, too, that the famous have the right to assault women according to the Trump holy scriptures. While limiting reproductive health and rights for women has been a hallmark of many evangelical dispositions, celebrating the assault of their mothers, wives, and daughters has finally trumped the pragmatism motivated by their Supreme Court anxieties. If coherence of principles remains a conservative Christian priority, Evangelist Russell Moore’s op-ed last month will get many more readers as Trump’s lewd barbarism becomes ever more difficult to deny. Of course Trump’s destruction of the defining GOP alliance was preceded by the wreckage of its fantasized one. Trump ruined the hopes of a new broader GOP alliance with his celebration of a wall that Mexico would pay for, but that was only the first of many “strong man” celebrations he would offer. His association with former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his surviving spokespersons, has moved Trump to continue celebrating the disastrous policies of “stop and frisk”. A smarter proto-fascist would have tried to build his authoritarianism on a broader base, but Trump’s ideology is just too deeply steeped in racism to be electorally triumphant. As one exceptionally well connected progressive friend predicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton should beat Trump in a landslide. The skeptic at that dinner table predicted HRC victory too, but worried about its certainty. We ought worry, for our nation knows the risk of the October Surprise. Trump’s tailspin risks us all Those who leaked Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street only revealed what Bernie Sanders and everyone who found his commitment to ending Wall Street influence know: those speeches must have been “damned good” for Madame Secretary to have been paid so well for them. This is of course not really news, for we all know that you don’t earn your keep by offending your hosts. However, it does give those opposed to a Clinton victory the chance to redirect her possible supporters to the Green Party or to the Libertarians. Trump’s campaign is very happy about this release, of course, for those who vote for Stein, or stay home, implicitly keep Trump’s hopes alive. Putin is among his greatest supporters. I am no cold warrior, but neither am I naïve about Putin’s Russia. I have spent my academic career analyzing Soviet-type societies and then the transformations of post-communist countries. While we ought be focused on how Putin’s regime has redrawn European state boundaries by invading Ukraine (contrary to Trump’s understanding, reflecting something more than Trump’s careless language ) and by committing war crimes in Syria, we need be much more cautious about how Putin’s skillful manipulation of democratic public opinion within his adversaries’ nations leads to state breakdown. Putin, and Trump, have celebrated Brexit not because they care for globalization’s dispossessed, but because railing against global elites creates room for their brands of militarism and fascism to gain ground. Putin does not stop there, of course – his aim is, ultimately, to weaken both the European Union and NATO, the latter of which Trump has found “obsolete” We ought, therefore, be wary of how Putin will try to maneuver Trump into the White House with his regime’s considerable capacities in information warfare. In the end, however, I agree with my optimistic friend. Should Clinton manage to mobilize those who justifiably fear a Trump regime’s ruin of US international standing and its promised assault on our existing standards of rights for women, people of color, and others (including the dispossessed white folks who celebrate his promise of a return to greatness), we should see a rout of Trump and those who continue to support him. But that won’t be the end of Trump. I don’t mean a new season of The Apprentice. Trump has given license to those who, in the name of opposing political correctness, feel free to demean and harm, in speech and in practice, those they consider inferior. He has encouraged his supporters to think that, should he lose, he was robbed of the victory by illegal means. As a former Pennsylvanian myself, I can readily read his racist surmise when he tells his supporters to observe the polls in certain places. And when Trump loses, do you think his supporters will retreat to their private resentments for the erosion of white privilege in America? The Morning After So I wrote on the morning before the debate, and now the morning after. I found Michelle Goldberg’s account of the debate most HRC sympathetic – while the Secretary could not quite hold onto Michelle Obama’s high road all the time, she did pull us back toward rational democratic deliberation despite the menacing hulk looming behind her, despite Trump’s threat to imprison her should he be elected. Those who declare Trump’s victory in debate can do so only because he has so effectively diminished not only our expectations of what a GOP candidate ought bring. He has helped mobilize the flames of ressentiment so effectively that it overwhelms any politics of respect, whether toward his opponent or toward his Muslim American interlocutor, or towards “the African Americans and the Hispanics”. He advocates a new sense of justice with the rule of law and constitutional integrity as potential casualties. He consolidated his base in that debate and the preceding press conference with such bravado and bullying that he won’t be eclipsed. Those who seek to save the Republican Party will have to go to battle. Barring some extraordinary October surprise, Trump has not only failed in his campaign, but has destroyed the Republican Party in the process. But he remains dangerous, and in fact, without the moderating force of the GOP mainstream, he becomes even more threatening. Trump has fertilized with his lies, grandstanding, and celebrity surmises, with his BS, a measure of white supremacy, bald patriarchy and proto-fascism on American soil I would have never anticipated. This last month of campaigning is not just about who wins the White House. It’s about whether the culture of this contest paves the road to Hell or gives us a chance to reroute toward the Promised Land. I pray for the latter, but the sociologist in me fears the former. The Politics of Progressive Identification and the DNC (available here: http://www.rifuture.org/politics-of-progressive-identification-dnc.html) July 28, 2016 Tonight’s speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton is historic. As we all know by now, she will be the first woman ever nominated by a major US political party to be a candidate for President of the United States. That video of the shattered glass ceiling simulates that achievement. Every progressive must applaud this moment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-glass-ceiling_us_579827fee4b0d3568f85272e Every human ought applaud it too if gender equality matters. In combination with the truly dangerous fantasy Trump presents, http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html most of my friends on the left declare that supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton is both historical necessity and a matter of political responsibility. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-i-support-hillary-clinton-for-president-a-letter-to-my-friends-on-the-left/ I agree, but, as progressives, we need to appreciate how we get there and what her election means for the future. Being progressive is not only about outcome. It’s also about process. It’s about living in our daily life the politics we want to see writ large. But before I point out the challenges of progressive identification with HRC, I wish to acknowledge just fears. If Trump is elected president, one of my gay friends told me, the marital unity he treasures most will be put at risk. We will have as vice -president one of the most fundamentalist religious politicians in the nation whose embrace of extremist anti-LGBTQ politics and anti-choice politics is enough, by itself, to move progressives to mobilize against Trump. Note here religious identification is not the issue. The Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine is a devoted and practicing Catholic, but also supports women’s right to choose and the sanctity of love over homophobia. Rhode Island Bishop Tobin’s take on Kaine https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/local/roman-catholic-bishop-in-rhode-island-criticizes-kaine/2016/07/25/378ad256-529e-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html has prompted healthy debate within the RI Catholic community http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160726/thomas-m-hines-bishop-tobins-arrogant-view-of-tim-kaine The Supreme Court’s composition is too important to allow Republican Party extremists to control those nominations. If Trump is elected president, the global security system will be put at risk. Already my friends on NATO’s eastern flank express profound worry about how Trump’s professed admiration for Putin and skepticism toward NATO put them at risk. Of course NATO’s embrace is hardly an obvious progressive position, but if you live in a place where Russian imperialism threatens, you must choose which superpower to welcome. NATO may not be an obvious place where progressives unify, but we must unify in opposition to the ways in which Trump uses religious and racial differences to divide, and puts all the means of violence, including nuclear weapons, on the table. I agree with those progressives who marked their opposition to President Obama’s drone wars and other ethically compromised means of war. But Trump is worse. We can go on, but to do so only reinforces a legitimate progressive objection. Our vote is sacred and it is our choice. We want to live in a system more authentic, and less compromised. Katelyn Johnson, delegate for Bernie Sanders, said during an interview on MSNBC on July 27 that she wanted her vote to echo “the system I want to live under”; she doesn’t want to drink “the kool-aid of a system I want to dismantle”. Progressives who fear Trump need to hear her, and so many others like her. We can’t allow our concern for outcomes to drown out the everyday practice that makes progressives different. And what is that distinction? We can’t base that distinction on particular substantive issues, even though it is the progressive’s inclination to debate which issue is fundamental. Is it a policy around the Trans Pacific Pipeline or closing GITMO? Perhaps it’s about investing in public goods rather than privatizing them. Like other progressives, I have positions on these and more policy issues. But progressives can, and should, debate these matters based on informed readings of policy consequences and their motivations. I think we come closer to recognizing that distinction when we look for authenticity. One reason Bernie Sanders mobilized so many people was because he has been consistent over decades in his opposition to the concentration of wealth and its deleterious effects on politics and everyday lives. One reason Joe Biden drew the applause for his speech that he did was because he emits, in everyday life and on stage, a sincerity that is not staged in the ways that so many other politicians look manufactured. While both Bernie and Biden are professional politicians, they are different from most. Barack and Michelle Obama are in a class by themselves. Their speeches at this convention moved the house not only for their fine deliveries, but also because they could embody the progressive, and human, alternative that we wish our America could be. If their daughters could play outside a White House built by slaves, we feel the progress that has been, that might be. But here’s the problem. Privileged progressives in our system like to feel good, and to believe that the place of the Obamas indicates that we live in a post-racial society. We do not. We can debate whether particular statistics mark progress or not, but we cannot diminish the profoundly racist underpinnings of the system in which we live, where violence against people of color, whether by police or through the proliferation of guns, whether through a prison industrial complex or in everyday aggressions and exclusions, define the enduring significance of the color line. When progressives celebrate Tim Kaine’s choice by referring to how well he speaks Spanish, and how he was a missionary in Honduras, many POC ask why not just recruit a Latinx person? The answer for too many progressives is obvious. We must win, and to win, we must cut into the demographic who supports Trump, that white male working class electorate, perhaps religious, that might find Kaine’s working class roots and enduring Catholic commitments compelling. But that’s the problem for many progressives who recognize racism’s power. Outcome trumps process, and leads too many progressives to adopt that condescending position of knowing better than POC who declare these candidates to be more of the same old racist system, with glass ceiling broken or not. And it gets worse. I especially appreciate what my friend Justice Gaines shared on Facebook, with wisdom zir friend, Nikkie Ubinas, offered: If Donald Trump wins, it's not because not enough people of color chose not to vote for Hillary. It's because enough people voted for Donald Trump to make him a candidate. It's because people elected Donald Trump. It's because institutions, systems, and people created him. It's because we have corrupt systems that don't give a shit about people of color and poor people. It's because Donald Trump is right in line with our American racist xenophobic and sexist history. It's because Donald Trump is America's enduring legacy. Here’s the issue that so many of my progressive white friends miss, what I miss were I not to listen and learn from Justice and others. In the panic about defeating Trump, progressives can practice reprehensible politics in everyday life, abandoning their commitment to authenticity, equality, and process on the altar of expediency and outcomes defined by those with privilege.   We ought celebrate breaking a glass ceiling, and I will do what I can to defeat Trump and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. But that is not because I am with her. I remain committed to political revolution, and its chances are so much greater with Clinton/Kaine in office than Trump/Pence. I am continuing that political revolution when I work for Clinton/Kaine, but a vote does not fulfill my political responsibility as a progressive. That political responsibility means holding Clinton and Kaine accountable to the Democratic Party Platform those leading the political revolution at DNC moved.  When Bernie endorsed Hillary it was not the end of the political revolution. It was just a signal that it is time to refocus down ballot and on civil society, to mobilize and apply pressure to politicians too easily influenced by Wall Street and other lobbies with money. When Katelyn Johnson, Justice Gaines, and Nikkie Ubinas signal their distance from politics as usual, I will listen and respect their position for that is the foundation of the political revolution, not the election of a particular presidential candidate.  I also respect Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison much, and he said it right today on Morning Joe: "Active citizens need to help politicians govern the country, and one way to do that is to let them know how you really feel…"  And it’s not just holding up placards and maybe even disrupting a speech. It’s about holding authorities accountable.  This DNC platform is different from all others preceding because it was made with the political revolution in mind. Again, Ellison said as much when he anticipated an election in which Clinton and Kaine win, but face active citizens who will demand that a new administration adhere to the Platform’s principles.  Were I to identify the progressive distinction, it’s one in which we respect and recognize one another, being particularly attentive to the ways in which power and violence diminish some and privilege others. Progressives are not defined by the candidates they support, but by the work, in everyday life and in political campaigns and in enduring political struggles, to include everyone in the set of rights and responsibilities that democracy organizes.   Recognition, respect, and maybe even love moves the political revolution, and my identification as progressive.  Ideology in the Time of Trump Is Fantasy (http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html an abbreviated version is here: http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FantasyofTrump) July 21, 2016 We can no longer distinguish Republican and Democratic parties with conservative and liberal labels. Too many Republicans proud of their conservative pedigree have distanced themselves from the party that Donald Trump now leads. Democrats now prefer the term progressive, but it’s not obvious that all those who supported Bernie Sanders will embrace Hillary Clinton despite his endorsement. Bernie led a political revolution against the 1%; it’s hard to see the former Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and Wall Street lecturer in the 99%. But maybe our labels and the methods underlying them are the problem that needs address before we figure our vote and anticipate the post-convention campaigns. When we reference ideologies, we can mix up political self-understanding with the analytical and critical accounting of communicative action. We ought to debate whether Secretary Clinton is really a progressive if she is part of the 1%; or if you prefer America’s version of Kremlinology, we can wait to see whom she chooses as her vice-presidential candidate to decide whether the progressive or moderate label fits her best. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/02/clinton-vs-sanders-whos-the-real-progressive/#.V4-4AJMrLEY But to focus on Clinton’s self-understanding and the ideological connotations of her policy and personnel choices is to do something similar to what the Republicans themselves do in their politics. By focusing on Hillary Rodham Clinton we miss how ideology works in the Time of Trump. There is substantial scholarly work identifying the articulation of Trump in the world of ideology and power. A number of scholars of fascism have made a strong case for why the label fits his practice. From experts on Italy, http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151209/NEWS/151209270 to experts on Germany http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-expert-says-yes-donald-trump-is-a-fascist-and_us_578d1a56e4b0d4229484d3e0 It’s not just that his language can be vulgar and that he diminishes many in his oratory. The label is compelling because it serves to warn us of a fascist future America has so far avoided. For some, however, this is not about an unrealized future, but revenge of the past. One of the world’s leading scholars of race and the history of white people, Nell Painter, marks a steady history of violence against people of color and sometimes their white allies; she argues that Trump borrows from an ideology of American white supremacy to express resentment for a black president and all that accompanies Obama’s leadership. https://www.facebook.com/historiansondonaldtrump/ Rather than being the force for law and order, then, Trump’s performance helps to stimulate the disorder that demands a strong white man to resolve. Trump and his defenders can defend his implicit and explicit racist and fascist speech by declaring he stands opposed to political correctness, celebrating that he tells it like it is. They say he expresses the real frustrations of the American people. But in that very declaration, this coterie declares their whiteness and superiority without ever saying, explicitly, that white supremacy is the route to make America great again. Of course Trump may never declare that he is a fascist or white supremacist, but that is not how ideology works in these times. We live in a time where those who care about truth are eclipsed by those who know how to put on a show, where comedians communicate the truth better than journalists or academics. Trump, while no comedian, is a showman, and knows how to turn any news into useful news. Melania Trump’s presentation with plagiarism, Jeffery Isaac proposes, was a perfect representation of Trump and his campaign: all show and no substance, all mendacity and no truth, and all ego and no real concern for anyone else. Say what you want. Do what you want. Vilify others and then steal their words. Get caught and then try to shout down and bully those who notice. This is not an aberration. This is Trumpism. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-melania-trumps-plagiarism-matters/ In this light, it would be insufficient to articulate Trump’s communicative power by linking it only to ideologies of fascism and white supremacy. His effect is realized through a celebrity culture that not only seeks salvation in the strong man, the superman, the Ubermensch; it finds in the fantasy of beautiful blonde adult children and the ex-model wife an escapism that appeals to those who feel abandoned by policy wonks, free traders, movement activists, academics, and conventional politicians. Michael D. Kennedy (2015) “European Referendum, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity” Queries 8:66 http://www.queries-feps.eu/Mag8_NEW.pdf They can escape the world in which women and people of color threaten their imagined place and find themselves in the fantasy Trump embodies. These people, in their alienation from the world that exists, enjoy Trump. Fantasy is different from the ideologies associated with conservatism, liberalism, or progressivism. It needs neither coherence nor evidence, for it is not designed to reflect or operate on reality. It is designed to constitute a reality that even its believers know is not real, but nonetheless has an effect that satisfies a desire that cannot be expressed openly in public. And it’s even better if that fantasy is somehow denied, for its proponents then can cry injustice and break the rules even more to prove, ultimately, the reality of that fantasy’s power and of their desire. The Republican National Convention is not just about selecting a presidential candidate; it’s the latest performance of a fantasy that derails the relevance of conventional policy and politics. In order to compete in the fantasy world made in the time of Trump, The Democratic National Convention and ensuing campaign cannot only be an expression of experienced leadership, policy expertise, and progressive and inclusive values. Most American citizens know that the system is in crisis, and desperately wish that the future could be more like the selfie Democrats post rather than what Republicans offer when they picture their interns. https://mic.com/articles/149274/this-dem-intern-selfie-is-dramatically-different-from-paul-ryan-s? But as crises and conflict accumulate, Americans could become afraid that an ideology that embraces them all will be destroyed by the violence of the few, feeding the fantasy that order demands the return of a real man to power even if they, themselves, are not white supremacists and fascists. We have seen how this works across the world. Putin blazed the trail, constituting the fantasy of a Great Russia at risk of destruction, finding evidence of that threat in democracy’s spread in Ukraine, and creating a war that demands even more authoritarian leadership at home. Erdogan has followed suit, finding the perfect opportunity in a bungled and possibly planted coup to impose a new order on Turkey, to impose the fantasy of a Turkey unbridled by expectations of western allies and cosmopolitan intellectuals. Trump and his promoters take note and whip up desire by positing threats (immigrants, Muslims, crooked politicians) to an order that might only be fulfilled if a strong man leads. Those who embrace this fantasy find enjoyment not only in hating those threats, but finally being allowed to say it publicly. Secretary Clinton and her allies may think they are running a convention and campaign against another politician, but they also need to recognize what it means to challenge a fantasy. This 2016 election is not a contest of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. It is about the communicative powers of fantasy and escapism vs. those of political experience, expertise and solidarity. And if that is the contest, the showman will win. In the Time of Trump, knowing how the world works is not more compelling than knowing how to declare that others are stupid. That’s not my fantasy, of course; it is my nightmare. And perhaps that is the point around which Secretary Clinton might become president. It’s not about vision or policy, but it’s about the fear of what Trump has already wrought, and what he might still bring were he to win. To work for the Democrats fulfills an alternative fantasy of salvation, except this time keeping America from descending to fascism and a full throated white supremacist order. This electoral contest is shaped by the contest between those who resent what they believe has happened under Obama, and those who fear of what might be under Trump. I don’t know which will win. Breaking a System Does Not Fix the Problems Michael D. Kennedy June 24, 2016 There are winners and losers in Brexit, but the stakes are bigger than a redistribution of power and privilege. We need to focus our attention on the alternatives in formation. The most apparent loser today is David Cameron, the Prime Minister who resigned after losing the campaign to remain in the EU. But it was his gambit that put the EU referendum on the table in the first place. He may be remembered best in a way that Polish Senator Marek Borowski tweeted, “Cameron: the bloke who burned his house to the ground because he wanted to check if its structure was fireproof”. The most apparent winners in Brexit are its advocates, including Tory Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party. But their victory signals more than the circulation of elites. It trumpets the triumph of a leadership style. Regaining democracy from Brussels bureaucracy expresses its advocates’ most noble claim, but xenophobia and racism are the currents that charge the mobilizing affect animating this new faith. Last fall, I named that faith Übermensch escapism – belief that if we could only be independent of foreign entanglements, we would be free to be rich and to be ourselves. It depends on mobilizing fear of migrants and people of color alongside resentment for those who profit from the global system. Donald Trump’s celebration of Brexit today is only applause for his own style. Knowing how a system works is secondary to knowing how to make the right deal, the faith goes. In fact, sometimes the best gambit is to break the system in order to then demonstrate one’s indispensability. Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, exemplifies that style. Putin broke the security system in Europe by invading Crimea and conducting hybrid warfare within Ukrainian territory. With that unexpected ploy, Putin not only restored his own domestic authority but changed the dynamics of international alliances. Appeasing Putin, rather than enhancing the rule of international law, becomes the new Realpolitik for Real Men. Brexit also breaks the system, and invites others to demonstrate their leadership with similar rebellion. Anticipate more political divorces across the UK, across the EU. But appeals to disdain for others cannot fix the systemic problems that produce the pain Übermenschen promise to fix with their strength. They will, however, take advantage, and they can because the alternative is not compelling. The campaign to remain within the EU could not be so vigorous as promising Brexit, even if it was rational. To challenge Übermensch escapism one needs more than competence and reason, and rather, perhaps, a political revolution based on mobilizing those marginalized by that same alienating system. Solidarity seems more important than ever in light of the dystopian Brexit that will burn those not only within but perhaps even beyond the UK. If only that solidarity were on the horizon. At least I see its glimmer in the words of Sadiq Khan, London’s mayor We all have a responsibility to now seek to heal the divisions that have emerged throughout this campaign - and to focus on that which unites us, rather than that which divides us. I want to send a particular message to the almost one million Europeans living in London, who make a huge contribution to our city - working hard, paying taxes and contributing to our civic and cultural life. You are welcome here. We value the enormous contribution you make to our city and that will not change as a result of this referendum. https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-of-london-response-to-eu-referendum-result Why People Feel the Bern: The Movement for Democracy Beyond Elections Michael D. Kennedy April 25, 2016 From the largest political rally in Rhode Island since JFK http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-to-ri-dont-accept-the-status-quo.html to the morning talk shows on the day after, I feel whiplash more than I feel the Bern. But that is because most political pundits don’t get the point of the political revolution Bernie Sanders articulates. I need to get the Bern back. And so do the people of Rhode Island, the people of the United States. Yes it’s about winning the Democracy Party nomination, and yes there is a narrow path to victory which depends on doing exceptionally well in the primaries tomorrow – in Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, my ancestral home in Pennsylvania and my beloved home today in Rhode Island. But the potential for victory tomorrow is only part of the story. It is, as Bob Plain properly emphasized, about moving beyond the status quo. (http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-to-ri-dont-accept-the-status-quo.html) It’s about the long haul and the power of truth. The truth of Bernie Sanders is not just about his consistency over more than three decades (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3NKvvxcSs). His message about the injustice of inequality has been the same, unlike other conventional political candidates who move with the political winds. It’s not just about the fact that he speaks truth to power: his truth has not been shaped by the donations of the people he claims to challenge. His message is funded by donations of millions of everyday people (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/ ). Political favors are the coin of the realm, but his currency comes in popular support. And that’s the point. I understand why so many of my friends support Secretary Clinton. Like me, they also see that she is far better than Trump. That’s true. They also believe she can get things done. Certainly, but her pragmatism works within a system that is rigged, that is broken. And that’s more about compromise with the powerful than about the power of truth. As Bernie said yesterday, as he does in each speech: our nation ought be judged not by our wealth and power but by how we treat those least privileged among us. With 40% of Providence’s children living in poverty (and 20% of the children of our state - http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150121/NEWS/301219986 ), with Pennsylvania and Rhode Island having the greatest percentage of structurally deficient bridges (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-infrastructure/bridge-data-by-state-inspections-structurally-deficient-totals.html), and the list could go on, we can’t just get things done. We need to make things right. Bernie is not a typical politician. He will not always say the “politic” thing. The reason everyday people #FeelTheBern is because he says things that you only hear in your sociology classes in university, and in sermons by those activists who are moved by the spirit of liberation theology. I was with two of them yesterday in Roger Williams Park listening to Bernie. They were moved. We were moved. And we are not millennials. But we each have been working for decades to teach about, and to change, the injustice of this system. We have worked with social movements for decades to make a difference. And that difference is on the horizon. We need to learn from each social movement on which Bernie Sanders has built this political revolution. Here are just a few. The Civil Rights movement from the 1960s began with civil rights, but continues to build momentum through today to search for political, social and basic human rights too. Black Lives Matter is more than a name for that movement’s expression today. It’s about assuring that the police represent the community they police. It’s about assuring jobs and education, not jail and incarceration, for youth, as Bernie would say. It’s about rights, and it’s about respect. Respect is all over Bernie’s campaign. His previous work in support of veterans is well known, but not because he is supported by a military industrial complex. As he himself argues, we might differ about when to go to war and when not, but we cannot debate the support our veterans deserve given their service to our country https://berniesanders.com/issues/caring-for-our-veterans/ . His support for veterans and for the Black Lives Matter movements, simultaneously, indicates that this is not a conventional campaign. This is a campaign that brings people together in recognition of the injustice that animates. It’s about the Occupy Movement too. Too many think that movement failed, but they are wrong. Thanks to them, we talk about the inequality and the 1% in politics, nobody more forcefully than Bernie. That movement is no longer apparent in their occupation of city parks, but it is apparent in the heart of a political revolution that marks gross inequality as injustice and health care as a right for all. That movement, of course, builds on the union movement in this country whose struggle for equality and a decent wage ought grow more vigorous with Bernie as president if history is any guide. Remember that America’s union movement consolidated its gains with that radical Franklin Delano Roosevelt as president. The environmental movement can readily work within the system, but the dangers of that accommodating view are apparent everyday as compromise leads incrementally toward planetary crisis. Bernie sets his sights differently from Hillary on principle, a difference most evident in their divergent approaches to fracking. Hillary is conditionally for it, but Bernie opposes it. Period. Evidence of the impact of different iterations of the feminist movement are apparent in Bernie’s campaign, but I see it most fundamentally in his commitment to empowerment. Injustice is not only in the system, but it’s also in the ways inequality is expressed behind closed doors, in ways that some treat as religious or natural. The political revolution is about pushing for equality in everyday life, by everyday people. It’s about empowerment. Nowhere did Bernie express yesterday that right to everyday equality better than in declaring, simply, that people have the right to love whomever they want. LGBTQ people and their allies have made a revolution in this country already, even if reaction rears its ugly head. But love, in the end, might be too powerful to quash, especially when love and good business climates go together. Love can make for strange bedfellows, and the image of Pope Francis and Bernie speaking in a hallway following a conference in the Vatican on the moral economy is one of them. But the fact that that seems strange is another sign of a broken and rigged system. Part of love’s power, and why it seems to animate Bernie’s political revolution is because the golden rule – do unto others as one would have them do onto you - is enough for Bernie to express his religious sensibility. And it’s that kind of religiosity that extends solidarity rather than division. Entrepreneurs might even Feel the Bern. In fact, most entrepreneurs are likely to be in the category that will benefit most from the kind of health care reform Bernie advocates. Instead of putting it on small business, embed those costs, as most advanced industrial nations do, in the government so that that public good does not fall on the shoulders of those who try to innovate. That was Bernie’s message yesterday too. “Yes, Yes, Yes, “, you can hear Bernie say, “how am I going to pay for it?”. Not only does Bernie propose to tax income more progressively and wealth more aggressively, but he can also tax that part of the economy that has been getting away with money making scott free, or tax free. Why not tax financial transactions? That’s a growing part of the economy, and a source of increasing inequality simultaneously. This IS about class struggle too. I identify all these social movements that have shaped the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders not only to illustrate that his prospects are based on his embrace of and learning from all sorts of progressive social movements. It’s also because his political revolution is a movement, and not a campaign. His goal is not only to win a nomination and election. His goal is to build a movement that not only changes the Democratic Party platform (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html?) , but changes the way in which our economy, politics, and society are run. That’s why I may not be alone in feeling the whiplash. When we enter the movement, we recognize the challenge, but we also feel solidarity and recognize the power of truth , the integrity that comes with naming the inequality and injustice that work to crush the soul of our people. We can feel progress in the movement, because we can feel the spirit of so many people coming together under the banner of a truthfulness that politics dares not speak. But when we listen to the pundits, they only tell us that Bernie cannot win the nomination in July. They miss the point. This is a political revolution that is not about July or a presidential campaign. It’s about a movement for justice and equality. That can’t be won with an election, but it can be built by voting for Bernie. And that is a small step toward the political revolution that we need in order to make America as it ought to be. Voting in the Democratic Primary for Bernie Sanders is not about assuring he wins the nomination. It’s about assuring that we have a movement that can make a future we believe in. We need a vision that goes well beyond the status quo that is, fundamentally, unjust. And that’s the truth that may change America. That’s why people #FeelTheBern. Solidarity or Escapism March 10, 2016 Michael D. Kennedy Like many Americans, I have been deeply moved by the success Bernie Sanders has achieved in his presidential campaign.  I am moved in a different way to hear that Donald Trump has nearly won the Republican nomination, and that he is about to go on a charm offensive to woo the party establishment.   Both candidates present themselves as outsiders challenging the political system.  It is wrong, however, to consider them equivalent.  One promises solidarity, the other escapism.  The choice they offer is not simply political.  It is moral and religious.   Trump has mobilized those who feel they have been forgotten or cast aside by the system our establishment has built.  He is not unusual in this world.  Like other authoritarians, he evokes an old kind of political authority.  Strong men don’t have to explain how they will change things.  They ask only that we believe they can do it--even if there is no rational reason we should.  Trump urges us to trust him.  But this is not trust, it is escapism.   The faith Trump asks us to place in him is almost religious in nature.  Religion, in fact, is all over this election.  It comes most quietly when it moves most powerfully.    Sanders invokes religion only when asked.  He demonstrates it in his practice, not in his rhetoric. When asked, he offers a religious sensibility that has its roots in his own Jewish identity, resting on the universal principle of care for one another.  He urges a solidarity that aspires to universalism, rather than focusing only on one country or people.   There is a reason why Sanders does not say, “Let's make America great again.”  For too many people, those are code words for a return to times when men were men and women were in the kitchen, when white folks ruled and people of color knew their place. Sanders does say, however, that we ought to make America what it could be, what it ought to be, what it has never been.  He believes our country can be better than it has ever been if we embrace each other, if we seek a solidarity rooted in our common destiny.   Sanders has been living this approach to politics for decades. He is a paragon of consistency.  His integrity is rooted in his politics of solidarity. In this way he contrasts most vividly with Trump. Trump will say what he needs, change his mind, evoke hatred and then insist afterward that he loves the object of his scorn.  He asks us to trust not in what he has done and how he has lived, but in what he conjures to distract us from what should be the real debate.   The choice we face goes beyond differences over the death penalty, reproductive choice, just war, and other profound questions.  It is about the moral and religious foundation that should shape our vote.   We are approaching a choice between integrity, mutual recognition, love and solidarity, on the one hand, and hate, distrust, manipulation and escapism, on the other. One leads to hope.  The other leads to Hell.      Trump will win the Republican nomination, or the Republican Party will consume itself in a convulsion of Biblical proportions. Hillary Clinton may well win the Democratic nomination. Whether she has produced her own vulnerability, or it is a result of the sexism and corruption of our system, she cannot easily escape the taint of her past improprieties. Trump will go after them like a shark smelling blood.  A contest between Trump and Clinton would focus on who is more criminal. That is a horrible choice.  I would rather be forced to choose between solidarity and escapism. Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, Who Is Your Favorite Superhero and Why? Michael D. Kennedy September 25, 2015 Many of us have been assigning our Facebook friends Comic Book Heroes to raise Childhood Cancer Awareness (http://www.charitablegamers.com/blogs/filling-facebook-with-superheroes-to-raise-childhood-cancer-awareness), but what about our presidential candidates? I normally write about the sociology of globalizing knowledge (http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24607), but over the last year I have been thinking about how superheroes are more than entertainment. As Ta-Nehisi Coates will no doubt show in his depiction of the Black Panther for Marvel Comics (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/books/ta-nehisi-coates-to-write-black-panther-comic-for-marvel.html?_r=0), superheroes can be partners in shaping social change. By identifying real people with a superhero identity, we might also highlight their greatest powers, and maybe locate their Kryptonite. We could even clarify the contest underlying the presidential primaries. Hillary would probably like to be Wonder Woman. Ms. Magazine nominated the Amazonian to be our president in 1972 and in 2012. But I see Hillary more like the X-Men’s Jean Gray / Phoenix, exploding out of a patriarchal sea in a burst of feminist hope and power. And just like Hillary, the good Jean is sometimes unable to curb her excesses risking her and others’ destruction. Bernie is Captain America. Although Cap can sling a shield like nobody else, philosopher Mark D. White is right: his greatest power is his virtue (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118619269.html). Nobody doubts Bernie’s integrity either, and that, alongside his message, is why he’s surging in the polls. His weakness? Principles may have no place in American politics. That brings us to the Donald where principles pale before celebrity and arrogance. Tony Stark as Iron Man comes closest here, for like Trump, he loves what his money can do. It built Tony an armored suit. If the Donald wanted one, Tony could probably alter the helmet to accommodate the hair. But both of them always have to be careful that their overconfidence does not spell their and others’ ruin. Carly has zoomed to the top of the Republican polls, making me think of Janet van Dyne as the Wasp. Like Carly, the Wasp has executive experience. She led Earth’s mightiest team, the Avengers, although Janet’s tenure seemed to get more applause than Carly at HP. Too, despite her diminutive powers, the Wasp has been able to defeat far stronger foes, just as Carly might bring down the Donald. But her powers are just not that great. Not like the Hulk anyway. If any candidate might fill that big green-skinned bill, it’s gotta be Christie. It’s not that he’s the dumb Hulk, far from it. But just like the behemoth, Christie just seems to get more powerful when he gets mad. And just like the Hulk, you never know what’s going to be leveled by the rage. Unpredictable, but you want him on your side, until, at least, he gets too tired and needs to nap. In great contrast we have Jeb, the calm and calculating one. He reminds me of Reed Richards, the father figure of the Fantastic Four. Reed and Jeb both feel like leaders, and good in stressful situations. But to be able to stretch in whatever direction you need is not the most exciting kind of superhero; you want to have a Human Torch on your team to add a bit of pizzazz. And who might be Superman? Alas nobody. Remember, Superman is an immigrant, a refugee. He certainly can’t run for president for nobody can find his birth certificate. Trump might even call him an illegal. Maybe that should be a question in the next debate: should Superman be deported? And if so, how are you going to pay for it? Brexit, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity I wish to thank Svenja Kopyciok for exchanges that helped inform the empirical basis of this essay. Errors, and political implications, are my own responsibility. A shorter version of this is available here: http://www.queries-feps.eu/brexit-ubermensch-escapism-and-anglo-american-european-solidarity/ . Michael D. Kennedy September 5, 2015 Someday we ought to make a list of those great debates that serve as great distractions. Brexit offers no solution to the issues that plague the world, and would only make things worse. Every sensible and informed American would agree. The special relationship between our two countries would only sour on Brexit, unless America elects its own distraction. Of course one can find informed Americans who would celebrate the Brexit option. They are like-minded folks to UKIP and the Conservatives’ back-benchers who find freedom and sovereignty to be the principles that guide their policies, empirical conditions be damned. Nile Gardiner “PM+: Brexit is best for UK and US” The Parliament: Politics, Policy and People Magazine March 9, 2015 https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/blog/pm-brexit-best-uk-and-us They are drawn to leaders who assert that entanglement is a sign of weakness rather than a recognition of reality. Ideologies can bend the world to their vision if they are wielded by the sufficiently powerful, but the United Kingdom is not in that club. Indeed, that club is so exclusive today that no sensible nation belongs to it. The United States is the most powerful actor in the world, but even it is caught in webs of entanglement that make the kind of rhetoric underlying Brexit seem foolish. The US economic rebound depends on the soundness of China’s economy; addressing the crisis in Syria and Iraq depends on finding common ground with Russia, which is, of course, fundamental to addressing the refugee crisis overwhelming Europe; figuring a consequential climate change agenda requires a measure of coordination that makes ideologies based on sovereignty seem like schoolhouse bravado. The world is increasingly interdependent, and that is the empirical given every responsible political agent ought recognize. There is one agent in the world, however, who shows what schoolhouse bravado can yield. The advocates of Brexit should find inspiration in Putin’s approach to global relations. Putin shows what breaking the rules of the game can offer. Invading Crimea and conducting hybrid warfare within Ukrainian territory has been a way for Putin to put his foot down and declare that he did not like Ukraine’s embrace of Europe and the international rule of law and bureaucratic coordination it symbolizes. By so breaking expectations, Putin changed the dynamics of international alliances and even investments in the gas pipelines that fuel them. It remains to be seen whether the solidarity of Europe and North America can maintain sanctions on Russia sufficiently long for an alternative to Putin’s east European practice to emerge. Brexit will certainly won’t help. Back in the spring of 2015 Labour was chastised for suggesting that Brexit would boost Putin, http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/12/labour-ridiculed-for-saying-brexit-would-boost-putin/ but since that time experts from Europe http://news.sky.com/story/1508208/germany-beware-putins-push-for-brexit and the United States Judy Dempsy http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/05/11/cameron-brexit-and-russia/i8fe Moscow times have suggested that Putin could be one of the greatest beneficiaries of such a move. One might debate whether Putin and his forces are actually and actively supporting Brexit public diplomacy, but there is no doubt that Putinesque Russian positions in defining a new world order would be enhanced by a diminished European Union. NATO could even be affected; at least Britain’s role in NATO would be diminished on Brexit. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/07/02/would-brexit-spell-the-end-of-european-defence/ There are some who seek evidence of Putin’s influence-peddling among UKIP as has been found among other Euroskeptic parties. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putins-farright-ambition-thinktank-reveals-how-russian-president-is-wooing--and-funding--populist-parties-across-europe-to-gain-influence-in-the-eu-9883052.html Although I join Ed West in wondering why European leaders don’t mobilize more against Russian threats to define the European alternative, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/nigel-farage-isnt-the-biggest-threat-to-the-eurosceptic-cause-vladimir-putin-is/ I don’t think Putin’s embrace of conservatives and Euroskeptics is important to the debate about Brexit and its implications for the US/UK relationship. Nor do I think that what is good for Putin is bad for the US. But I do think it is manifestly clear that a strong European Union is good for the USA, especially in a time where Putin is rewriting the rules of the geopolitical game, and the West works to figure out its place in a world defined by a rising China. Nobody can argue that Brexit will increase the soundness of the European Union. Of course the advocates of Brexit don’t care about that soundness, and are putting the United Kingdom first. But in that assumption they presume that the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States will not only remain the same but become stronger given our historic ties and cultural affinities. They are flat wrong. The much noted tilt toward Asia undertaken by the Obama administration is based on an anticipation of the future. Changing weights in the world economy will mean a relative decrease in the European Union’s overall significance, and Brexit will only hasten that demise. But make no mistake either: should Brexit overwhelm good sense, the United Kingdom’s special relationship with the USA will be one of its casualties because the European Union’s significance will be far greater, in economic, diplomatic, and military terms, than Britain’s. In the end, there is no upside for the USA in Brexit. When President Obama declared his support for the UK remaining in the EU, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/593405/Barack-Obama-UK-EU-European-Union-David-Cameron he was, simply, being empirical. But Brexit is not based on realistic thinking, or even ideology. It may have been David Cameron’s calculation to increase his bargaining power in the EU’s internal reform, but its attraction rests, in the end, on emotion. It is Britain’s Trump. Trump, rather, is America’s Brexit. Donald Trump expresses the outrage many ordinary citizens across Europe and America feel at their authorities. Trump is an alternative to politics as usual, offering a kind of Übermensch giving the frustrated license to declare those with whom they disagree to be stupid, low energy, or incompetent. If only you had someone strong in power, someone who knew how to build skyscrapers, they could build the wall that will keep out the migrants who violate our rule of law and endanger our families and communities. Brexit and Trump are expressions of the same frustration: if only we could be independent of all those entanglements, we would be free to be rich and to be ourselves. I realize that David Cameron is no Trump, nor is he Putin. However, it is characteristic of those who pretend entanglements to be only restraints that they often get ahead of themselves in their attempt to redefine reality with the outrageous. Cameron has put himself in a conundrum from which he may not be able to escape without catastrophe for his party, and for his nation, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11637905/David-Camerons-presumptuousness-may-push-us-into-Brexit.html just as Putin has risked the whole of Russia with his recklessness, and Trump risks the Republican Party with his excesses. Übermensch escapism is the danger about which we ought to worry, not the European Union superstate of which Margaret Thatcher and her descendents like to focus our fears. Putin is its finest expression in the present, Brexit is its extension, and Trump’s surging popularity is its American agony. David Ignatius, “Is Donald Trump an American Putin?” Washington Post August 18, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-donald-trump-an-american-putin/2015/08/18/46c3dd38-45db-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html I fear that reality will not keep up with Übermensch escapism. I worry that the fantasies that Putin, Brexit and Trump represent will come to define our reality. And they will unless the fear that mobilizes support for Putin, Brexit and Trump is recognized and engaged. In the case of the latter two, migrants and refugees mobilize fear in incredibly destructive ways. Nigel Farange and UKIP, even before this latest crisis magnified by the reckless decisions of Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orban, were focusing on Britain’s asylum policy to whip up passions around Brexit. Donald Trump has done the same with suggestions that we need to deport all those who have settled in America illegally. I am confident that Trump’s approach moves the Republican Party to a position that makes it impossible for it to win the Hispanic vote, which in turn will make it impossible for Republicans to win the presidential election. Given the dynamics of the refugee crisis in Europe, however, I am not so confident about Brexit self-destructive position before it is too late. But there are grounds for hope. The shame European leaders must bear as refugees die on seas in capsized boats and in lorries locked from without is too much for the decent to bear. Those civil society organizations mobilizing to support the most vulnerable among us suggests an alternative political formation in the making that can inspire a different kind of solidarity that reanimates a Europe thought dead.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/world/europe/migrant-crisis-austria-hungary-germany.html?ref=world&_r=0. http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2015/09/06/accueil-inedit-pour-les-migrants-arrives-en-allemagne_4747308_3214.html https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/civil-society-steps-support-hungary-train-station-refugees Europe’s progressives need that kind of vision of an alternative that inspires, and not just satisfices. America experiences just that kind of revival in this moment. Even if Bernie Sanders does not win the nomination, the growing influence of the constituency he mobilizes in the Democratic Party means that the White House in 2016 will not be one that celebrates Brexit, or even the TTIP on the table, much less the a Free Trade Agreement only with the United Kingdom that benefits only the billionaires on both sides of the pond. Sanders is developing an alternative to a populism based on Übermensch, and rather one based on progressive policies that promise a real redistribution of power and privilege, and not a fiction of freedom for all. With a Democratic Party in power in the White House in 2017, whether that be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley or Joe Biden, I can imagine an alignment between the US and the European Union based on solidarity and hope. But that will not be with Brexit. If nightmares come true, where Trump and Brexit define our futures, I may be returning to that old critical theory that could only find a flicker of hope in the world. I will be resenting that Putin who smiles at having been able to remake the world in his image. I would rather be working on a world of Anglo-American-European solidarity. And that depends on an exit from Brexit. Bernie Sanders is Captain America Michael D. Kennedy, Jane Goodman and Steven Goodman Michael D. Kennedy is a cultural political sociologist at Brown University, author of Globalizing Knowledge (2015). He is writing a book provisionally entitled Superhero Sociology. Jane Goodman and Steve Goodman lived in Burlington, VT for 40 years and have been Bernie’s supporters throughout his political career. August 1, 2015 We doubt Bernie Sanders or Captain America would recognize himself in the other, but the greatest power of each is the same. Of course we can’t quite imagine Bernie dressed in the Star-Spangled Avenger’s costume. Nor does Bernie have the physique that we see in the comic book pages or in the Marvel films, when Chris Evans dons the uniform. And yes, we know Captain America is a fictional character and his choice is limited by what his creators and copyright holders offer. His fans also have a say – they would never allow Captain America, for example, to be associated with the Donald. So what on earth allows us to imagine Bernie as Captain America? Captain America’s greatest superpower is his integrity. Yes, he has a super soldier serum coursing through his veins, but as philosopher Mark D. White points out, his ultimate strength rests in the combination of courage, humility, righteous indignation, responsibility and perseverance animating his virtue. How is Bernie virtuous in these superheroic terms? Whatever one thinks about Bernie’s politics, nobody would ever accuse him of lacking profiles in courage. His willingness to stand up to the big money ruining American democracy puts him in Captain America’s league. Perseverance easily comes to mind too. He has been struggling for the same kinds of justice across his active political life. While the WWII Captain America took a break, being frozen in ice until he came back to the comic book world in 1964, Bernie hasn’t stopped moving justice for some half a century. Humility and responsibility go together when we think about Bernie. It’s clear that Bernie’s political commitments are never about Bernie’s success, but about how he might contribute to the greater good. Similarly, Captain America disliked celebrity in his comic book days, and preferred to celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of the common soldier. Righteous indignation is no obvious virtue, but you can see it readily in both Cap and Bernie. Neither can countenance injustice, and their anger is sometimes apparent even as both work hard to keep it in check. Their judgment wins out, seeing the long-run struggle as more important than an easy sound byte. They also have their weakness. Both Cap and Bernie are completely dedicated to their cause, and hard on themselves and those around them when they don’t live up to standards no normal human can keep. But that’s why we have superheroes: to remind us of what we ought to be, and perhaps, why we ought to join their team. Superheroes need to be tempered by humanity, while normal folks need inspiration to realize a world fundamentally better than the one we have. A Comparative and Historical Sociology of Alternative Futures Prepared for the WebForum in association with http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-futures-we-want/ Michael D. Kennedy May 29, 2015 Markus S. Schulz invites us to develop a sociology of the futures we want. http://www.isa-sociology.org/forum-2016/. That’s appealing to me on its own terms, but also because it is a meaningful extension of themes animating Globalizing Knowledge (2015) http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24607. There, I ask how we might develop a knowledge cultural sociology that mobilizes intellectuals’ institutions and networks to engage issues in a more globally responsible fashion. I conclude the volume by reviewing various approaches to systemic crisis and subjectivity’s reconstruction in anticipation of more desirable futures. Rather than rehearse points made in that book, I shall extend Globalizing Knowledge in dialogue with three different volumes I have read after completing my own. They invite me to rethink global history, global futures, and transformative practices in ways that inspire a different kind of comparative and historical sociology of alternative futures, and one that could put the sociology of the futures we want at the core of our discipline. Of course my essay’s title is meant to be paradoxical, but on reflection it should be obvious that there are affinities between our sense of the future and the methods we use. It is easy, of course, to imagine theories animated with prime drivers having teleological anchors. For those concerned with alternative futures, comparative and historical sensibilities seem obvious. I myself find the greatest affinities of such a sociology with the kind of comparative and historical sociology exemplified by Bill Sewell http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo3533904.html. Drawing on the “Sewellian list” (Kennedy 2015:22), emphasizing the multiplicity of structure, unpredictability of resource accumulation, intersection of structures, polysemy of resources, and transposability of schemas, I suggest different ways in which we might articulate historical transformations with alternative futures. I also insist that we be more mindful of where and how we look at the world in these sociologies. Nevertheless, in that volume I am not explicit about the global sociology in which I situate my work. Global Sociology and Systems Those who know my lineage might assume that I draw on the most macrosociological approach I know – the ecological-evolutionary theory of Gerhard Lenski. And indeed, I have sought to establish his linkage with critical traditions in sociology, Michael D. Kennedy “Evolution and Event in History and Social Change: Gerhard Lenski’s Critical Theory” Sociological Theory 22:2(2004): 315-27. but Michael Mann’s oeuvre offers even more recently an ideal interlocutor for the value and challenge of global sociology when thinking about alternative futures, especially now that he has reached the 21st century http://www.cambridge.org/US/academic/subjects/sociology/social-theory/sources-social-power-volume-4 In contrast to Lenski, for whom technological innovation is both empirically and theoretically the prime driver, Mann (2012:423-32) explicitly rejects that kind of argumentation given the interactive qualities of his four non-equivalent and non-congruent forms of power: economic, military, ideological, and economic. And while he might celebrate Marx’s ambition, he ultimately embraces Weber’s historicity, Consider Mann’s response to John A. Hall around his relationship to Marxist and Weberian traditions (pp. 169-76 in http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=9780745653228). an affinity I share if not only by theoretical inclination, but also from recent world historical developments. I suggested Lenski could be open to eventfulness but does not theorize it in the same ways Sewell can. But we need that kind of eventful thinking more than ever as we try to figure, for example, what Putin’s invasion of Crimea means for more than Russia and Ukraine. Mann’s framework would allow for us to take up that event, and invites us to consider the ways in which his four sources of social power mix it up in its analysis. However, it’s exceptionally difficult to determine, on the basis of the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s unconventional war on Ukraine, how we might move beyond ideology itself. After all, explaining its drivers, and its alternative futures, immediately sucks us up into the intellectual extensions of the information war itself. I have discussed the challenge of intellectual responsibility around Ukraine in my lecture at American University, whose elaboration is here: https://www.academia.edu/10282109/Extensions_of_Globalizing_Knowledge Even beyond this implication, the global disposition explaining sources of social power from without and above is, itself, undertheorized and can be problematic. Mann appropriately devotes much of his fourth volume to addressing the form of American empire in the world. I find much inspiration, but that kind of global view can erase the qualities of struggles, especially when contemporary, in less privileged places from our view of alternative futures. Indeed, it could even make us disinterested in what Ukrainians want, and focus only on what Americans, other Europeans, and Russians wish, and what powers they have to realize those wishes. When we think, then, of a sociology of the futures we wish to see, it’s critical for us to recognize which voices get heard and translated into the anticipation of alternatives. That’s hard to figure, and something I began in Globalizing Knowledge. But one might also choose a theoretical lens that appears to escape that problem. Saskia Sassen’s (2014) http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674599222 emphasis on accumulation through expulsion rather than through incorporation I reviewed it here: (2015) “Centering the Edge in the Shift from Inequality to Expulsion” Contemporary Sociology 44:1(11-14) shifts the lens enough for me to worry less about the representation of variably recognized peoples in the articulation of global futures. With her framework, we think less about how any particular struggle shapes the terms for global futures, and rather more on how articulating different expulsions – of peoples (of the poor and of their health, for example) and of things (of proximate environments and global atmospheres, for example) – enables us to recognize an emergent system distinct from the one that has formed our sociology. Instead of analyzing inequalities within systems or societies, we ought recognize those expelled from systemic accounting. With Sassen’s shift, our sociology is less one of extending lessons learned in one place to characterizations of the system as a whole. It becomes more about reconstructing what that system’s emergent logic is by knitting together expulsions of all sorts typically studied within their own knowledge niches. We might even work to articulate them in something more than academic terms. Sassen offers no guidelines to practice here, but she does leave open the door for it. She suggests that the system is not necessarily self-destructive, but what might make it sustainable is another systemic question. In order to develop the sociology of futures we want, of a system that does not destroy humanity and the world that sustains it, we need to figure how systems can be otherwise. But for that, we need to move away from structures. And here, the Japanese Tea Ceremony might be surprisingly instructive. Global Sociology and Practice Kristin Surat’s Making Tea, Making Japan http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=20929 most evidently concerns the practice of nationalism, but it is also something more. Surat’s analysis of the tea ceremony suggests something new about cultural power. The tea ceremony has somehow survived radical transformations of Japanese national expression while at the same time ensuring a sense of continuousness that phases of isolation, westernization, imperialism, postwar defeat/recovery, and democratic and peaceful internationalism would seem to deny. There is something about this tea ceremony that is remarkably resilient, on the one hand, and generative, on the other. It is resilient because it is reproduced over time. Yes, the experts and principal practitioners may shift from upper class men to housewives, and it may articulate very differently with various kinds of power, from militarists to commercial houses. It remains recognizably the same in practice over time, but it is more than resilient. It is generative. Tea ceremony practitioners are able to use this ceremony to express a kind of power that is not just about the manipulation of force or the distribution of resources. It expresses, in that Durkheimian sense, a kind of collective effervescence that is not only in the moment of ritual, but present in the anticipation of its performance, in the immaterial residues left on its artifacts, in the contemporary aura of its historical endurance. In a seminar at Brown University, Surak explained that resilience and generativity of practice in terms of the contradictions that the tea ceremony embodies. It is distinctively Japanese, and yet it is universal. It is remarkably dependent on certain concrete settings and material artifacts, and yet it transcends the material world. It is heavily scripted, but it depends on a measure of improvised interaction in which much is unpredictable. It is, in short, a performance dripping in feelings of authenticity and yet unreal given the world in which we live. It is not so obviously anticipating a global future we wish, however. Universities could. Although I celebrate knowledge networks in Globalizing Knowledge as the most agile and immediate in addressing the futures we want, their nodes necessarily involve universities. They appear to function in ways that appear to be mostly about the reproduction of their status, or the search to climb the ladders of recognition. But I wonder whether we might not recognize in these knowledge institutions contradictions that not only debilitate our higher purpose, but represent the resilience and generativity Surak identifies in the tea ceremony. A Global Sociology of the Future I Wish to See Part of the future I wish to see are universities that are not only simultaneously dedicated to public engagement and basic research, but figuring their fusion in ways that enhance the likelihood that we develop the global futures we want. One sees this readily in environmental hubs, less so in international studies where the distinction of “practitioners” and “scholars” reproduces the problem. Why? The notion of practice already presumes identification with constituencies of power and/or professions of convention while scholars rarely develop the reflexivity that justifies their position vis-à-vis various powers that be. This allocation of knowledgeable labor won’t help us realize the futures we wish to see. We need a new model of engaged scholarship that could take inspiration from the practitioner/authors I mention above. Our sociology of the futures we wish to see needs to develop a sense of emergence in Sassen’s sense, a feel for global powers and transformations that Mann exemplifies, and the attention to unrecognized practice that Surak’s study illuminates. If I might suggest based on my own work, it also demands a cultivation of intellectual responsibility that makes us recognize the importance of global priorities, collaborative learning, and public engagement. To be in conversation around these volumes would build in my present the future I wish to see. “Negotiating Revolution from Poland to Hong Kong?” Michael D. Kennedy December 11, 2014 As the 33rd anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland approaches, many colleagues in Hong Kong are asking what the lessons of Eastern Europe’s Revolutions of 1989 might hold for the future of the Umbrella Revolution. Poland was the first of the East European communist regimes to fall. The leaders of the revolution, most notably in the Solidarity movement, were dedicated to the struggle for truthfulness.  They were united in opposition to the systematic and systemic lie that communist authorities in Europe had perpetrated. Of course, there were some communist authorities dedicated to truthfulness, hence the recurring efforts to reform a system that was not working as well as it claimed. But Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and others also saw the deeper problem: one cannot change a system without having the freedom to talk openly about the problems of the system. And an open dialogue is difficult without respect for one another. Dignity, in the end, is the foundation for dialogue. In 1989, leaders of the communist party and leaders of the opposition organized around Lech Walesa and Solidarity came together to negotiate a reform to change the Soviet-enforced system. They knew one another, and knew that together they had to find a way out.  And they did so with partial reforms that eventually led to real transformation. The image of the Berlin Wall collapsing is the wrong symbol for imagining 1989.  The system did not simply collapse.  A more appropriate image is that of the round table, where Poles negotiated an exit from a dysfunctional and untruthful system.  They negotiated revolution. How was this a revolution? It was not violent, and many who were privileged in the old system found a good life in the new one. They used their political capital to acquire economic capital.  To some, this conversion is morally objectionable. But if it was the price of a non-violent but radical transformation of the old order, it is a meaningful and useful compromise. This was, in the words of the analysts of the time, a revolution against the revolutionary tradition.  And thus, it needs to be understood in its own terms.  But it also bears consideration for the future. Poland's trajectory has been the most successful of those leaving communist rule. An essential asset in that change was a civil society willing to accept compromise in the name of gradual progress.  Another asset was a ruling group willing to recognize that its historic role was not to defend its power and privilege at all costs, but together with the opposition, to figure out a transformation for the common good. For those in Hong Kong struggling today to improve their world, the history of Poland ending dictatorship is critical, and its lessons many.  One cannot understand success or failure in the moment of struggle. To many, the imposition of martial law in Poland on December 13, 1981, was a defeat. But in retrospect, it was the foundation for the negotiated revolution that came less than a decade later.  Everyone sympathetic to the Solidarity movement in 1980-81 knew they were living on the edge, anticipating crackdown. And yet, when martial law was declared, the Poles were not prepared for what it would mean. Only a few leaders escaped capture. On that day, some thought the movement had been crushed. That turned out to be an illusion. Solidarity had developed strengths that prevented its simple defeat.  Poland's leader, Wojciech Jaruzelski, thought he could break Solidarity through a combination of force and new forms of consultation and compromise.  But by imposing martial law, he profoundly alienated a substantial segment of Polish society.    Martial law, in this sense, made it impossible for Jaruzelski to dictate resolution. It even made a negotiated settlement risky for the communists, for the stakes of negotiation, when it finally came, kept rising.  After the violence of martial law, negotiation demanded far more significant change. The lesson? When a movement has developed as substantially as Solidarity had — or, as Hong Kong appears to have — it cannot be crushed by force.  Instead, the choice becomes when to negotiate. As in 1989, negotiation following repression is more likely to lead to negotiated revolution.  Negotiation before repression is likely to lead to negotiated settlement. Right now, Hong Kong is on the edge of this decision. If the authorities negotiate a meaningful compromise with the protesters tomorrow, they will not have to face a far more substantial set of demands in the years to come.   Those who fail to recognize the importance of dialogue and compromise fail to recognize the lessons of history.  The patience and ingenuity of those that struggle in Hong Kong for truthfulness and for justice is admirable.  It seems to resemble Poland’s struggles in 1989. The critical question is whether the reigning authorities in Hong Kong and China can demonstrate a wisdom similar to that which led to non-violent and meaningful change in Poland.    Michael D. Kennedy is professor of sociology and international studies at Brown University.  He is the author, most recently, of Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation. “Engaging Intellectuals and Politicians” Michael D. Kennedy November 21, 2014 When the eminent French sociologist Michel Wieviorka joined our November 2014 meeting of the Next Left in Santiago http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/4cb1fead-e521-42b2-bc63-b343bebccc97/2014-11-19-feps-next-left-programme-chile-finalpdf.pdf , he rearticulated an enduring concern: how can we extend the engagement between intellectuals and politicians, between collective actions and institutional expressions, between the instrumentalities of politics and the complexities academics favor. I agree, but we don’t always look in the right places. The gulf between theory and practice is not hard to find, of course. Politicians lament the complex phrases academics use; students demand rights that the institutionally embedded say universities can’t afford. And we can see the effects of these gaps when those in authority decry populism of left and right, and those in opposition express only alienation from those who rule. But we also need to find instances where theory and practice blend. And that is why Santiago is such a powerful place. In my book, Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation ( http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24607), I rework familiar notions of intellectuals and their responsibilities. In Chile, this is especially critical, and evidently important in many different ways. It’s most dramatically apparent in the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, Founded in 2010, this museum is dedicated to recognizing the violations of human rights the Pinochet dictatorship committed during 1973-1990, and to mobilize reflection on those crimes so that such injustice cannot be repeated within Chile and across the world. http://www.museodelamemoria.cl/ I view this institutional articulation of moral responsibility as a profoundly intellectual, and political, expression. In a way, this and other museums retelling the histories of crimes against humanity reiterate the sense of intellectuals in opposition, of the importance of speaking truth to power, even if that power is now overthrown. But this museum, at least, is more than that too. Intellectuals with institutional authority moved its creation as well as making other social and political mechanisms to bring truth to a nation deeply wounded by injustice. This is a ready example of how intellectuals might use power truthfully. To consider how to use power truthfully is a critical question not only for the articulation of past crimes but also for the exercise of institutional responsibility in the present and in the construction of alternative futures. Intellectuals assume institutional responsibility in many circumstances, from their obvious roles as leaders of universities to the more occasional role as presidents of nations. In Globalizing Knowledge, I consider qualities of intellectuality among three very different political leaders – the late Vaclav Havel, the new president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, and Ricardo Lagos, Chile’s president between 2000 and 2006. To spend time with Lagos in Santiago in November 2014 helped me appreciate, once again, how intellectuals with institutional responsibility and cultural authority might narrow the gap between theory and practice. I am neither from Chile nor an expert in its history or culture. I come from the USA and have spent most of my academic life working to understand the struggle against communist rule, and its legacies, in Poland and other places with analogous trajectories. But when I became vice provost for international affairs at the University of Michigan in 1999, I could not remain in my familiar terrains if I was to do my job properly. I ranged across knowledge cultures and regional referents. I found my way by considering the public consequence of scholarship across the world. In my book, I reflected on President Lagos’s example for our world, but his exercise of post-presidential, and local, responsibilities has struck me most during my time with him in Santiago. While in our conference his ideas about the importance of multilateral institutions and international rules in the protection of small nations resonated most readily with me as a sociologist in international studies, it was the work of his foundation http://www.fdd.cl/ in the elaboration of communicative rationality and political value that most inspired me as some who is, of course, also a citizen in a particular place. I recall during President Lagos’s time at Brown University his increasing interest in the significance of that shift from the one way communication of radio and television to the interactivity of social media. And upon my arrival in Chile, I learn of his creation of what he calls “The Fifth Power” http://www.elquintopoder.cl/. Among its functions is the distribution of an app to people in Santiago’s urban districts, where they can report directly to their local government problems they see on their streets. This is more than interactivity between a single citizen and their representative; this also creates a neighborhood or collective effect, making those on line with the complainant also aware of the issue and the struggle to fix it. This initiative creates various local publics that suture citizens and political leaders, rearticulating theory and practice, connecting intellectuals and publics. Clearing the streets of garbage or fixing damaged traffic lights is not the same as redirecting climate change, of course. Too, local issues may not be so complex as negotiating international trade agreements. But this is an example of where those with institutional power can exercise intellectual responsibility to figure ways to bring truthfulness to public effect. And to extend its point. President Lagos would be the last person to find in digital activism as solution to every problem the world faces. But I find in this example one answer to Michel Wieviorka’s questions. As Michel, I also seek fora where intellectuals and political figures can find meaningful common ground. But I also find that fusion to exist when we can see in political figures the exercise of intellectual responsibility. Not all politicians have this inclination, nor are they all so equally able. But where they are, we should recognize it. And where they fail to blend intellectual and institutional responsibility, we need to mark that gap, and find ways to reduce that distance. During this time in Chile, I found many reasons to believe that this is a struggle worth continuing, and one that can move social change for the public good. Universities can be at the center of not only speaking truth to power, but of using their institutional power truthfully. Rethinking the Social Question Where is Class in Trade, and Where Does Latin America Belong? by MICHAEL D. KENNEDY On November 20-21, 2014, politicians and academics from the world over assembled in Santiago to rethink the “social question” in global terms (http://www.fundacionsalvadorallende.cl/2014/11/gran-jornada-de-debates-en-seminario-%E2%80%9Cnext-left-una-respuesta-progresista-a-la-cuestion-social%E2%80%9D/). Social reformers and socialists have debated how to address social rights and inequalities for well over a century, but typically within the nation. Globalization demands that we think increasingly about how to engage class formations across nations. The gathering in Santiago brought progressives from the U.S., Europe, Africa and Latin America together to discuss and analyze how class articulates international organizations and global flows. Trade agreements moved to the center of debate. The “Next Left” knowledge network (http://www.feps-europe.eu/en/projects-next-left) Funded by the European Union’s Foundation for European Progressive Studies and affiliated with the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament had already organized an October meeting in Washington to debate with Americans the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The Party of European Socialists needs to figure its place in that proposal for increasing trade and harmonizing regulations between the US and the EU. Its support, or opposition, will determine the agreement’s fate within the European Parliament. Some socialists have supported that agreement, believing that increasing ties across the world is, intrinsically, progressive. Many socialists are troubled by the ways in which the proposed agreement looks to elevate corporate citizenship above real citizens, and corporate rules above democracy’s law, however. Alfred Gusenbauer, Austria’s former chancellor, was especially emphatic about withholding socialist support for the agreement. That led most in that gathering to conclude that progressive support depends, first, on eliminating the symbol of corporate class power, the Investor Dispute Settlement Mechanism (ISDS), from the agreement before other issues are even addressed. Beyond class, however, this agreement signals another transnational social question with geopolitical effect. Where is Latin America in TTIP? This question, posed in the Santiago gathering by Chile’s former president, Ricardo Lagos is obviously not about his Pacific rim country. But no Latin American country, whether it borders the Atlantic or otherwise, has been invited to the TTIP negotiating table. Why? And perhaps even more importantly, so what? This exclusion marks a more systematic feature of the trade agreements proliferating in the wake of failed multilateral efforts. Growing powers of the global economy, most notably China, India, and Brazil, are not part of TTIP or its Pacific Rim kin, the Trans Pacific Partnership. Trade experts debate the likely impact of TTIP and TPP on the world economy, and on the national economies included and excluded in these partnerships. For the Santiago assembly, this was more than an economic question, however. It is, again, a question of who is writing the rules of the emerging global order, and whether trade agreements are the proper forum for restructuring global governance. Ireland’s former Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore, was especially emphatic on the importance of reforming international institutions so that they might represent the whole world better, and less its concentrations of power. The leader of Chile’s Diplomatic Academy, Juan Somavía put a concrete proposal on the table in that spirit. The United Nations would be more representative of its constituent member-nations without the veto power of the Security Council. Certainly the prospect of ending that practice is utopian given the power of already constituted interests, but Somavía asked whether the Council might not be convinced to eliminate its right to veto in the selection of the next US Secretary General. To debate whether TTIP extends corporate power at the expense of the working class, and how the United Nations might be transformed, appear to be questions worlds apart. They are not, however, when knowledge networks cross hemispheres. Globalizing knowledge typically means shifting domain assumptions and analytical frames. Europeans and Americans might debate the contents of trade agreements, but when the discussion moves south, the question of class in trade must be supplemented with the question of national prerogatives in global futures. Globalizing knowledge in practice, however, means more than having expertise on trade, class and global governance in the room. In order for that debate to carry consequence, it requires that basic questions academics pose find receptive ears among politicians who legislate the rules but have little time for much beyond immediate and lobbied concerns. It requires that we have political figures like Ricardo Lagos and Alfred Gusenbauer who understand the mechanisms of everyday governance but also can think beyond its needs to anticipate, and help structure, global futures. Knowledge networks are increasingly effective at mobilizing intellectuals across generations and continents, but the next step requires that we figure ways to extend their direct engagement with the international institutions and agreements that are the objects of their analysis. This Next Left in Santiago was just that expression, an articulation of intellectual responsibility before a world in crisis and transformation. Rethinking Catastrophe in Ukraine A Commentary based on presentations and discussion with Mychailo Wynnyckyj, Dominique Arel, and Margarita Balmaceda at http://watson.brown.edu/events/2014/defining-ukraine-domestic-politics-shadow-catastrophe April 18, 2014 1:00 pm Michael D. Kennedy Catastrophes are made not only by natural disasters, systemic contradictions, and evil intentions. They are made even worse by the failture to recognize the right way to mobilize concern and resources. In the catastrophe growing in Ukraine, four glaring mistakes are currently guiding thought and action. 1. The hard distinction between domestic and international politics must be replaced with a focus on forms of global influence on local decision making. Terrific emphasis is properly placed on the ways in which Russia has been infiltrating Ukraine with its own special forces, political tourists, and “men dressed in athletic garb;” Russian news talks much about the visit by CIA director John Brennan to Kyiv on April 12. But sovereignty does not mean impermeable borders and isolation. Only big powers like the US and Russia can pretend to their publics that they are sovereign in their decisions. Instead, we should ask how foreign powers influence a nation’s decision making, and then distinguish invitation and advice from bribery and armed intervention. Categorical differences between these forms of foreign influence should not be made equivalent in politics. Russia is playing by the latter rules, and the West by the former. Too many fail to recognize the world Russia promises to make with its example. 2. The revolution associated with Euromaidan deserves recognition, but it cannot be the lens through which those beyond Euromaidan’s politics are viewed. Much like the Solidarity movement of 1980-81 in Poland, the months of largely non-violent protest in Kyiv’s Independence Square was a historical movement promising a better world. I admire that Euromaidan. But I also believe that governance based on its embrace, especially when so many in the east and south of Ukraine have come to define themselves against that revolution, is a mistake. Instead we need a new politics based on an engagement with Ukrainian citizens who feel distant from Euromaidan’s promise. Further, the Ukrainian east must be rethought, with the courageous and loyal Ukrainian leaders in Dnipropetrovsk replacing those of dysfunctional Donetsk in our imagination of that east. In times of crisis, new visions of the Ukrainian nation must be forged without the justified righteousness of a revolution grounded in dignity. 3. Dignifying crude power politics with legal fictions diminishes an already precarious rule of law in international affairs. Few powers in the world have endorsed Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, but that does not matter to Putin. Part of his project is to rewrite the rules of the game, even while he pretends to follow them. The referendum in Crimea is the grossest example of this Putinesque manipulation. I worry ever more about the status of law for all (and the rights of indigenous peoples in particular - in this instance Crimean Tatars) - in the emerging world order. I worry about the old world order, too, when I see the Geneva negotiations produce a document that insists all irregular militias disarm, and all spaces illegally occupied be evacuated. The elephant in the room, the occupation of Crimea, cannot be imagined in this compromise because Putin has already declared the legality of its annexation. Diplomatic niceties when one actor plays crude power politics drag the lawfully minded into a pit of their own decline. 4. Ultimately, to understand the Ukrainian catastrophe we need to understand Putin’s project, and not assume we can manage it. With Ukraine, we need to defeat it. Lilia Shevtsova is right: Putin is playing a deadly game of chance, disrupting old rules with hopes to extend his life in office. And as he extends that term, he is destroying the peace and security of Europe, and perhaps the world. http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/04/14/the-putin-doctrine-myth-provocation-blackmail-or-the-real-deal/ Many justifiably worry that military confrontation with him could start World War III. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605578/Edward-Lucas-I-hope-Im-wrong-historians-look-say-start-World-War-III.html But he has already developed a new kind of warfare that, if not stopped, will generate unconventional warfare in the heart of Europe that can easily spread and wreck the world polity and economy. As Russia continues its incursion into mainland Ukraine, Ukrainians will not sit by and look for new compromise. Many Ukrainians find their virtue in deeds that denote courage and honor and that, in the long run, disrupt economies and polities further. Those irregular forces will not give up their weapons, and I can’t blame them – at least not until Ukraine has better security guarantees than that 1994 Budapest Memorandum that Russia violated when it invaded Ukraine. As Ukrainians resist, Russians will advance, and as they advance, they will not stop at Ukraine. They will move to Moldova. And they just may take on NATO by invading Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Why not? They could find Russians there, or they could send Russians there to carry out the same war that they already executed in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine. And then NATO will have to decide, together, whether defending their alliance is more valuable than Europeans preserving their economic ties with Russia. And it’s not obvious to me what that choice will be. Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. “Putin’s Vision” Global Post (forthcoming) And that’s a step toward even greater disaster. Ukraine cannot defend itself alone against a Russian invasion that has already begun. It is time for the West to decide whether it can see itself in Ukraine’s revolution of dignity and its fate in Ukraine’s future. I can. But given the way in which Putin continues to outplay the West in war that is not war, and in negotiations that are not negotiations, a future based on the smooth extension of the present only offers the world historic tragedy. This Is Not a New Cold War: Engaging Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy March 12, 2014 12:03 AM EST When we face global transformations for which we are neither politically nor intellectually prepared, we typically reach for historical examples to give the illusion of understanding. And so it is today. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not Cold War II. This is Not Cold War First, the West feared the ideological foundations of communism, evident in the paranoia featured in red scares of all sorts. Putin has no ideological adherents beyond Russia beyond those who see anyone opposing the US and the EU as an inevitable ally. The ideology associated with simple anti-Westernism is reactionary, and without the promise of the radiant future communism promised. Second, the most powerful opponents of Western reaction to Putin’s invasion of Crimea are those in the West who fear instability more than they fear injustice and illegality. Putin has dealt them the cards in their deck, and they are willing to accept the rules of the game he has defined because they fear, reasonably, an escalation that will be too costly for the West (e.g. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/leslie-h-gelb-cut-the-baloney-on-ukraine.html) For this group, at least Crimea, and perhaps even the Ukrainians and their Maidan Revolution, are a casualty of a war already lost. Those who wish to accommodate Putin’s invasion have their purest and most principled allies on both the far left and far right. The far left says no to all state violence and reaction, and while the Russian invasion might be resisted best by a revolution in Russia, it is not to be contested by NATO or the West https://www.academia.edu/6312878/I_hate_On_war_in_Ukraine#1 http://avtonomia.net/2014/03/03/statement-left-anarchist-organizations-borotba-organization/ The far right also rejects solidarity with Ukraine. At least the British nationalists do, and have argued that this is not their fight http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march052014/brits-ukraine.php Most Americans, according to the latest Pew Poll agree with those nationalists: http://www.people-press.org/2014/03/11/most-say-u-s-should-not-get-too-involved-in-ukraine-situation/ Most of my academic colleagues expert in Russia and Ukraine agree that Putin’s invasion is best left unchallenged too. Scholars recently have signed an open letter with the following 5 points: 1) Russian occupation of Ukraine should cease; 2) any referendum under occupation in Crimea is illegitimate; 3) more substantial elections across the whole of Ukraine should take place as soon as possible; 4) Ukraine should become more inclusive and decentralized; and 5) deescalate the rhetoric; no militarism in speech, for that could provoke war (http://alliruk.livejournal.com/687418.html) Though many colleagues and friends signed this letter, I could not. I join them in wanting to avoid bloodshed, but I disagree with most of them, and with many other experts on Russia, who believe that Russia is justified in its fear of Maidan and its geopolitical implications. The extension of NATO to Russian borders along the Baltic states, was too much. To offer a NATO bridge across Ukraine entirely unacceptable. And for them, geopolitical Realpolitik trumps Ukrainian wishes and Putin’s criminality. That is a conservatism I cannot abide when it depends on accepting a reality founded on profound lies. Truth and Lies in Debating Invasion It’s not just the pundits who talk about Cold War II. Putin also knows how to invoke false historical analogies. He has provoked reasonable fears of those who lived, or whose parents lived, through World War II and Soviet times. The fight against fascism was one thing that legitimated the USSR as virtuous. That the Soviets managed to present themselves as a leader in the struggle against the Holocaust enables Putin as the heir apparent to Soviet rule to claim that anti-Semitism is on the rise again with the increasing prominence of those who revere Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian whose role in the 1930s and 1940s put him in league with Nazis invading the Soviet Union (after the 1939-41 alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany ended that is). We are right to be concerned about the far right’s place, but we are more right to be concerned about the spread of violence. That is why I agree with the negotiations concluded on February 20, 2014 between Yanukovych and the political opposition from Maidan: private militias must be taken off the streets. Certainly Putin uses this capacity of the Right Sector among others to justify his invasion. Many Ukrainians, however, see those wielding not just Molotov Cocktails but also small firearms as heroes of the revolution, after the martyrs who laid down their lives for the defense of the ideals of democracy and dignity lived on Maidan. And they are now more than fully justified to remain mobilized and armed when Putin brings more violence to Ukraine than anyone in the country ever experienced in these years of independence, more than anything they could have ever imagined. Indeed, when my colleagues and I conducted research in the mid 1990s in Estonia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine about how to evaluate changes over the last decade, Ukraine was split over the value of leaving Russia. But on one thing people could agree, whether from Donetsk, Kyiv, or Lviv: they were happy to have left Russia for Russia goes to war too readily. They were happy to live in a Ukraine that prioritized social peace, where their sons and daughters would not be killed in war (pp. 220-21 in http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/cultural-formations-of-postcommunism) That normal and decent value and expectation has, of course, been ruined by Putin’s invasion. So, if we are to return to the negotiated settlement of February 20, 2014, it must begin not with the confiscation of the Right Sector’s weapons, but the removal of Putin and his forces from Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Is this just another hypocritical American demand? Some justify Putin’s action by saying that the West is just as bad. We all know Putin is lying for his justifications of invasion; even The Moscow Times acknowledges this. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-russias-invasion-of-crimea/495918.html The West is worse, for these critics, because it is more powerful and because it is less duplicitous and more hypocritical for its lies (http://aje.me/1e9gtGO). But here’s the difference, and this is more than liberal ideology. We can challenge a warfaring state, one that goes beyond the rule of law. Look, after all, at the contest between the Senate and the CIA, out and open in the public sphere. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/cia-accused-of-illegally-searching-computers-used-by-senate-committee.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0) That might be consequential for how security and surveillance ultimately dominate our lives in America. Look at what Putin did with those who protested the invasion of Crimea. Protest is snuffed, there is no balance of powers. All depends on Putin and his reality. Still, the analysts have a point. The West and the Ukrainians played into what one critic calls “Putin’s grubby little hands” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia That’s why we need a better understanding of the Putin Power Elite. One of the best analysts of this is Lilia Shevtsova. Putin’s Reality and Power Elite She argues properly that the West does not get it. Putin’s ambition is to recreate an alternative center of the world, one in which Russia serves as the spiritual, political, and economic core. With that sacred place, Russia is not only allowed, but it is obliged to protect its people, broadly understood and well beyond citizenship, from any forces that threaten them. And even if they do not threaten, as the Ukrainian Revolution did not, Putin can manufacture the threat to justify the invasion. We cannot know where this ambition to recast the post-Cold War order will stop. But we know that Maidan, as principle and as practice, is a threat to Putin that must be stopped. I have said it before, but it’s even more obvious to me after reading Shevtsova: Euromaidan, or more properly Maidan now, was more threatening to Putin than any sanctions the West might offer. If Ukraine could develop a democratic state and society governed by the rule of law, why shouldn’t Russia? If Ukraine could celebrate truth in the struggle against corruption, why shouldn’t Russia reject not only well crafted lies, but the blatant ones too that legitimate the invasion by Russia of Ukraine? Most of my colleagues expert in Russia look for the escape valves from crisis Shevtsova marks, but also declares irrelevant. Putin does not, she says, seek an escape from this crisis. He rather aspires to weaken the West even further so that its guarantees of security are worth less than the paper on which they are written. If that is the logic and direction of the Putin regime, does dialogue, does negotiation, does understanding “Russia’s point of view” makes sense? Or does figuring real costs to the Putin invasion become imperative? Those who recall Hitler’s methods clearly see the imperative. Poles and Lithuanians lead in this sensitivity, not only for their historical memory but also for their real vulnerability. Beneath the confidence of Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski’s interview with BBC lies a reasonable anxiety: does the West have enough solidarity to present a strong challenge to Russia’s new imperialism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuWHEU9dVY&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop … To compare Putin with Hitler is, apparently controversial, and in the spirit of this article, misplaced. Putin is no Hitler. He will not orchestrate death camps. But some justifiably wonder whether he might force the mass movements of peoples as Stalin did. The global public is becoming more aware of the terrible suffering the Crimean Tatars endured during World War II, although their calamity was not labeled Holocaust. Stalin forcibly moved in 1944 nearly 200,000 Tatars, mostly women and children, from their homes in Crimea. Crimean Tatars themselves recall this forced movement to Soviet Central Asia as their own genocide, with nearly half of their total population killed (http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/krimtatars.html). And their removal opened Crimea for immigration of others. Over the late 1980s Crimean Tatars began to return to their homeland on a larger scale, struggling to rebuild their lives in lands where past properties were confiscated and their memories erased. (for a beautiful essay, see http://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/contents/no_other_home) Nevertheless, especially over the years of Ukrainian independence, the Crimean Tatars regained a place in their homeland, and even seats in parliament, including the well known Soviet dissident Mustafa Cemilev and Refat Chubarov, the two leaders of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis for these last two decades. Both Cemilev and Chubarov have publicly condemned Putin’s invasion of Russia, and declared the upcoming referendum on the future of Crimea illegitimate. http://uacrisis.org/mustafa-cemilev/ Would Putin’s declared wish to defend the world from fascism and its systematic anti-Semitism only extend to his wish to defend the world from Stalinism and its systematic destruction of Crimean Tatars. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/crimeas-tatars-fear-long-simmering-tensions-will-explode-n47331 Putin might also listen to the Jewish people of Ukraine who he claims to protect with his invasion to protect the world from fascism. In this open letter, among Ukraine’s leading Russian-speaking Jews call out his lies. http://eajc.org/page32/news43672.html One violates the Holocaust’s injunction to remember by invoking its memory to cloak ies and the destruction of others. In the end, however, Putin does not really need these lies for Putin’s Reality extends across Europe. While some may say that Putin’s Power Elite is now vulnerable to sanctions, it’s also true that their implication not only in European energy security but also European finance means that Europe has, itself, become dependent on Putin’s reality, on the privilege and priority of stability over the rule of law. Indeed, the very resistance of European authorities to launching a major investigation of money laundering among their wealthiest patrons from Russia suggests just the success of Putin’s regime. This is why the invasion of Ukraine is not just a struggle for the rule of law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is also a struggle for the survival of principle and morality over crude power politics. And this is why this is not Cold War II. In that first cold war, there was a legitimate ideological struggle over whether social rights or civil rights were foundational. The end of the cold war, for some liberals, proved that civil rights were more important. For more critical thinkers, we saw this was an opportunity to develop a healthier tension between the priorities of civil and social rights, one that was not held hostage by an ideology that claimed ownership over the latter even as it denied the right to have rights in practice. Is It Only Crude Geopolitics? In this potential cold war, there is no ideological struggle that goes beyond the crude self interest of a Putin who seeks to distract his public from their legitimate democratic wishes. This invasion of Crimea is a good way, too, to remind his 100+ billionaires that their control of more than 1/3 of Russia’s wealth is entirely dependent on him, and they dare not step out of line. No ideology worth its salt will celebrate an inequality of that magnitude that reflects patronage rather than innovation and creativity. There is nothing in Putin’s invasion that is worthy of defense. Communism looks good in comparison. The only thing that he has on his side is that he can make it worse. And that’s why this is not Cold War II, for this is no ideological contest. This is only a contest of wills and wisdom. And so far, the West dramatically lacks the former. And both sides lack the latter. Wisdom does not birth in compromise. It comes in transcendence. And that’s why we should stop talking about Cold War II and start talking about how Ukraine’s fate reflects the world we wish to inhabit. Or the world we will suffer by its dismal extension. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Russians themselves suffer first, but we are all at risk. Solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s Reality ” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/03/solidarity-with-ukraine-against-putins-reality/#.Uxo5G17TM7B , March 7, 2014 Michael D. Kennedy Completed March 3, 2014 9:00 pm We should not be surprised by differences about how to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Understanding reasons for those differences is one critical step toward formulating an effective response. Recognizing both real policy options and the equal importance of political signals is the second. Moving too fast is dangerous in the short run, but not moving at all is the most dangerous in the long run. And that’s what Germany’s leadership promises. We should not be surprised that the authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain explicitly resist calls for trade sanctions. Leaderships in Austria and Hungary are likely with them. London seems more concerned with its financial prospects than European well-being. Putin has been pursuing a policy of diplomatic divide and conquer within the EU, sweetened with economic deals powered by the energy business. Critical studies often explain corporate power and practice by analyzing interlocking directorates. It’s time that progressives use the same methods to understand Russia’s post-Soviet imperialist strategy, and the willingness of European elites to buy into it. Although Chancellor Merkel may report that Putin is out of touch with reality, Putin has constructed a business reality in which Germany, England, and others are deeply and increasingly implicated. And that reality finds expression in calls for more diplomacy, more fact-finding missions, more OSCE engagement in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And that’s just what Putin wants. It gives him even more time to consolidate what has by now become the fait accompli. Defacto if not dejure, Russia has Crimea. And Putin seeks more: a fully subordinated Ukraine through the country’s fracture into more autonomous regions easier for imperial manipulation. Germany and the like-minded are avoiding tough responses because they are living in and accepting Putin’s reality. That’s dangerous in the long run, for Putin’s reality is ultimately based on the rule of force, not the rule of law, on the convenience of the lie and not the search for the truth. Ukraine was trying to build something different. Euromaidan and its extensions rebuilt Ukrainian society. Although it had its political class, its methods were not unlike the Occupy movement itself. It was an alternative public, maybe even a “revolution in reverse” to use David Graeber’s terminology. It tried to model in protest the kind of society it sought to establish for the nation. While it had its limits, it certainly fared well in comparison to the regime it eventually overthrew. While some activists of Euromaidan might have pulled down Lenin statues and thrown Molotov Cocktails, the Yanukovych regime won any contest for brutality with its snipers and its torturers. That Yanukovych regime kidnapped hospital patients and assigned them to prison cells without health care. Euromaidan was a revolution in the name of dignity and rights. It overthrew a dictator. It’s insulting to discuss whether the new government is constitutional, for Euromaidan made a revolution against Yanukovych’s intransigence and brutality. Only 1989 managed to square that legal revolutionary circle. Of course Euromaidan also harbored those whose politics I detest. We should analyze critically and diminish politically all those who seek to restore fascism’s appeal, whether in its crude anti-Semitisms or celebrations of almighty leaders. At the same time, we should not fall prey to those who use the invocations of Bandera and other World War II fighters by some of Euromaidan’s activists to identify the whole movement’s politics. Russia has been deploying its considerable political technology to demonize the leadership come out of Euromaidan as fascists, thugs, and nationalists, in part to disguise their own fascist behavior. After all, what can be more fascist than to use Hitler’s techniques to justify war? On the day before German forces invaded Poland in 1939, Hitler dressed Nazis in Polish uniforms and attacked the German speaking Gliwice radio station. Poles and other East Europeans know this trick all too well, and see it in Putin’s forces today. After invading Crimea, Ukrainian soldiers have by and large resisted the impulse to fight. With this kind of strategic non-violence, itself a legacy of the Euromaidan revolution, Putin lost his justification for invasion. Instead, he relies on lies and provocations to get what he wants. He sends Russians to pose as Ukrainians to provoke clashes. He doctors digital media to imply mass oppression of Russian-speaking citizens. He creates the image of chaos so that he can rescue ethnic brethren. He denies that Russian-speaking Ukrainians might not want to live in a Russia defined by Putin’s reality. And Putin can rely on the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, to request the rescue of the Ukrainian nation against an unconstitutional takeover by the forces of Euromaidan. Who would want to be defended by such a lying and brutal regime? It cannot be any more clear that the New Ukraine Euromaidan promised is the kind of society the world wants as its partner and Ukrainians would prefer to a warfare-based state. It cannot be any more clear that the kind of society Putin wishes to install, and what he imposes at home, is the kind of order that is a risk to all. Too many invoke Munich 1938 as parallel. While I see the justification for parallel, I can’t justify the call to war. At the same time, I am glad Poland has assembled NATO forces. Poland has requested a meeting of NATO ambassadors under Article 4 of their Charter. This cannot be read, this should not be read, as preparation for NATO’s war with Russia. While some will identify NATO superiority in overall capacity, it does not have sufficient solidarity and will to go to war. That’s good. But they need sufficient coordination and commitment to use their capacity for war to deter further aggression. They also need to be careful. Brinksmanship could spark unwanted conflict. Poland may be playing an incredibly smart hand here. Their allies in the European Union and NATO know that Poland and Lithuania have been the most aggressive in defending the New Ukraine. These countries also know Russian political technologies better, or, at least, have the least stomach for them. Those NATO countries bordering Ukraine should invoke Article 4 to prepare for war in case Russia has a hard time stopping when it decides Crimea is not enough. Ukraine’s NATO neighbors should also prepare for war to move those allies still mired in Putin’s reality to more aggressive non-military actions. It has been repeated time and again by commentators. Impose sanctions now. Focus on Russia’s ruling class, and not just the men with their hands on the triggers and on the gas meters. Yes, freeze their accounts in Western banks, but also deny them and their families the visas that enable them to travel to this decadent Europe they so disdain in their public pronouncements, and so love in their private moments. Those sanctions will only reinforce the punishment global markets have already imposed on the Russian economy. Today the ruble declined to its lowest trading value vis-à-vis the dollar ever. Its MICEX index lost more than 10% of its value in a single day. Gazprom stock took an even bigger hit. Those declines could be exacerbated through the rule of law. What would happen if an extensive and systematic investigation of money laundering took place across Europe, with a focus on Russia’s ruling class? It is said that America should play the lead here. In the absence of leadership from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, it must. And it should support Poland, Sweden, Lithuania and the other parts of Europe who choose not to be defined by Putin’s reality. At the same time as political authorities act and markets collapse, its time for the publics of Europe and beyond to show their solidarity with Ukrainians struggling to defend their nation from invasion, and with Russians who struggle to save their nation from war’s destruction. I admire those courageous Russians who dare protest Putin’s war. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave. They coordinate, in part, with a hashtag circulating in Russia: #нетвойне, or No to War. There is some people to people diplomacy going on that is pretty compelling too. Ukrainian students communicate directly to Russian students: "We ask you to tell your leaders not to kill us" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI4fRRSjm2E … I also admire those Ukrainians who are now prepared to defend their nation. I admire their bravery, but I also admire their savvy. I admire their social media publicizing all of Putin’s lies, and I admire their willingness to sign up to fight Putin’s aggression. But they cannot win by themselves. And I pray that they don’t have to fight any more. One might hope that demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia’s oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin’s reckless intervention puts to the entire Russian economy, and to their way of life, and do something about it. But all of that depends on real solidarity with the New Ukraine, with that society whose virtues were so evidently being born on Euromaidan. It depends on the European Union and NATO finding common voice in severe sanctions. We can’t risk war. But we should prepare for it. If Putin’s reality defines the world, we will have to wage it. (March 5, 2014) “The West Should Stop Squirming and Put Sanctions on Russia” Michael D. Kennedy and Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. The Guardian Secretary of State John Kerry opened his latest press conference by assuring everyone of the "intense discussions" now underway to get Russia to "de-escalate" in Ukraine. It wasn't hard to anticipate Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We knew it was possible given the invasion by Russian troops of Georgia in 2008. We knew Russia could rely on some Crimean residents to say they needed protection from Ukrainian nationalists now in power, when they were not, in fact, at risk. We knew that Sevastopol was important for Russia, serving as the country's principal warm weather port for its navy. We should have expected that Russia would do anything to defend it. We should have expected they would go beyond the minimum and occupy the whole of the Crimean peninsula. We should have anticipated, and prevented, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That was a major failure of intelligence and diplomacy. While many now fault Europe and the US for failing to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the challenge now is how to resolve this and facilitate Russia's withdrawal. In short, we must challenge Russia to save Ukraine. As two brothers, a scholar and soldier, we were both disgusted – but not surprised – by the passivity of President Obama's initial response. To be "deeply concerned" and to issue vague threats of "consequences" may work in certain polite diplomatic worlds, but they were hardly likely to dissuade a President Vladimir Putin who appears to live in a reality distant from moral suasion. (Even Angela Merkel says so.) It looked like a different Obama administration at this week's start. President Obama cut off military ties to Russia. His administration now threatens to ban visas and extending the Magnitsky Act itself, which allows the US to sanction individual Russians. On top of that, new and substantial economic aid has been promised to Ukraine by Kerry and the EU. That should get the attention of even the most nationalistic of Putin's empire-rebuilding supporters. Targeting the oligarchy worked in Serbia during the assault on Kosova, when Nato targeted Serbian elites' economic interests, bringing Milosevic to the table. This may bring Putin to the table now. The Obama administration finally recognizes the Putin regime for what it is, and what the west needs to do before it backs away from this round of imperialist aggression. Putin's regime will recognize international legal regimes when convenient and violate them when it's not. Putin's regime will act in ways that shock liberal values and act as if it complies with those values when they violate them. David Remnick of the New Yorker says that Putin enjoys watching Europe and United States "squirm". This is Russian Great Power ideology, and if the takeover of Crimea is successful, this ideology will find its confirmation in the exercise of force. That extends even beyond Ukraine, as we now feel the effects of Russia's "success" in its invasion of Georgia. So much for the non-violent democratic revolution embodied in Euromaidan. We now see that past transformations like it, the so-called "color revolutions", depended on Russian acquiescence, a disposition no longer apparent. ReSet was, in retrospect, ridiculous. The west failed to recognize Russian Great Power, increasingly anxious about its own legitimacy at home, projecting its power abroad to distract its own public from the pseudo-democracy that Putin proclaims with the phrase "sovereign democracy". Euromaidan is Russia's greatest nightmare. Not because it risks moving Ukraine beyond a Eurasian Customs Union; the New Ukraine would have found compromise between Russia and Europe. It is a nightmare because it tells Russian citizens that pseudo-democracy is not all that the majority of Soviet descendents deserve. If Ukraine could develop a country based on dignity, human rights, and the rule of law, why not Russia? Ukrainians knew this, and they pressed forward. The west, stuck in visions of clashing civilizations, did not recognize how populations learn, change, and become something different than how they were born. Putin understood this better than the west, and that is why he acts to suppress Ukraine by its dismemberment, and, should he find resistance, full-scale war. The west does not just need to rethink diplomacy, to devise ever-smarter sanctions, to figure how to exclude Russia from the global network the west dominates. The west needs to recognize the dynamics of social change itself, the promise of Ukraine, and the fragility of Russia itself. We should not respond to Putin as if he were a kind of child with a tantrum who needs to be coddled. We must distinguish the Russian people from Putin and his regime, and recognize that the Russian people have the same potential as the Ukrainian people in their own self-emancipation. With that recognition, what does diplomacy in this crisis look like? It begins with the sanctions President Obama has identified. Secretary Kerry reiterated Wednesday that sanctions are still a "serious possibility". If Russia does not withdraw from Crimea, the US, along with its allies, must do more to ban visas for Russia's power elite and their families, and to extend the Magnitsky Act itself. Imagine the pressure on Putin if an extensive and systematic investigation of money laundering took place across Europe, with a focus on Russia's ruling class. Certain kinds of military action are also appropriate, those that display Nato unity and resolve without upping the ante and guaranteeing war. Such measures could include establishing Nato AWACS orbits over eastern Poland to monitor Ukrainian airspace, and/or conducting a no-warning air defense exercise in Poland involving rapid deployments of non-Polish NATO air defense capability to Polish skies, including the best fighter in the U.S. inventory, the F-22. By thus upping the ante, military risks for Russia would be dramatically increased and thus enter their calculations. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin's criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia on Sunday were not overwhelming, but they were incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia's own police. More and more Russians are standing up to Putin to say this ruins Russia. One might hope that those demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia's oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin's reckless intervention puts to the entire Russian economy, and do something about it. And one might hope that western leaders will recognize the danger Putin poses, and push back this great threat to global peace. Recognize Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine and label it for what it is. If that had been the starting point 10 days ago, we might not be at such a loss for what to do today. (March 5, 2014) “If the West Stands Up to Putin, Russian Economy Will Pay Heavy Cost” Global Post Floyd D. Kennedy and Michael D. Kennedy It’s easy to recognize both analytical failure and diplomatic incompetence after the fact. While many can now fault Europe and the United States for failing to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we must now figure how to facilitate Russia’s withdrawal. Clarity is essential in analytical thinking in the midst of crisis, and we come together—one brother an expert on security and Russia, the other an expert sociologist on Poland and Ukraine—to consider how to challenge Russia to save Ukraine. First, the risk of escalating war must be avoided at all costs. Ukraine is already doing that, refusing to engage militarily over Crimea, but mobilizing to protect itself from an invasion of its mainland. Ukraine cannot stop Russia by itself, but it can, and will, inflict substantial casualties on Russian soldiers although its own civilian losses will be considerable. Still, such a military confrontation is unacceptable. At the same time, NATO must provide Ukraine with the support it needs to deter further aggression. What are the West's military options to counter this blatant act of aggression? While many NATO nations, including the bordering state of Poland, have highly capable forces, none–including the US–has the capacity to challenge Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine. The best the West can hope to do militarily is facilitate resistance through airpower if requested by Ukraine, a NATO Partnership for Peace nation. But no NATO nation wants to get involved in a shooting war. Brinksmanship could set the conditions for an unwanted military engagement through incremental measures such as establishing NATO AWACS orbits over eastern Poland. This tactic would enable NATO to monitor Ukrainian airspace, and/or conduct a no-warning air defense exercise in Poland. An exercise of this kind would involve rapid deployments of non-Polish NATO air defense capability to Polish skies, including the F-22, the best fighter in the US inventory. If NATO ups the ante, military risks for Russia would be dramatically increased. But alone, these moves would be secondary to the main focus: the Russian economy. In 2008, Putin's Russia carved out Georgian territory without consequence. Now Putin is rerunning that script in Ukraine. Will the West refuse once again to impose consequences? With Washington remaining hopelessly mired in the naïve belief about Putin's willingness to work with the United States, consequences are probably the last thing on the Obama administration's mind. Economic sanctions must be imposed—and quickly—to hurt the foundation of Russian imperialism. Russian assets must be frozen, all trade cut off, and the economic infrastructure of Russia and its oligarchy put at risk. Such consequences will get the attention of even the most nationalistic of Putin's empire-rebuilding supporters. It worked in Serbia, during the assault on Kosovo, when NATO targeted Serbian elites' economic interests, bringing Milosevic to the table. It can work again. The real economic costs for Russia’s ruling class, and indeed its entire country, will be starkly evident without any policy work. The Russian economy will decline sharply, as Western investors and creditors dump Russian commercial ties like the risky bets that they are. This process will be intensified if Western banks are no longer homes to the massive capital flight Russian oligarchs regularly stimulate with their transfers of wealth. Austria could take a lead here, given its banks’ deep ties to Russia’s ruling economic class. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin’s criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia today are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia’s own police. A hashtag is already circulating in Russia: #нетвойне, or #NotoWar. Compelling people-to-people diplomacy is going on when Ukrainian students communicate directly to Russian students: "We ask you to tell your leaders not to kill us." These demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia’s oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin’s reckless intervention incurs for the Russian economy, and do something about it. And one might hope that Western leaders will recognize the danger Putin himself poses, and push back this greatest threat to global peace the world has seen since the end of the Cold War. After Invasion Analytical Thinking and Diplomacy around Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy March 2, 2014, 9:37 AM EST The West was clearly not thinking well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I worry that the same kind of myopia and failure to imagine the range of possibilities continues to shape diplomacy. Here are some analytical points that ought to be put more squarely on the table. I begin with four points about context. First, we know that crises elsewhere in the world already embody greater humanitarian disaster and deserve more Western critical thinking. But now it becomes clear that Russian contributions to past critical thinking are likely to have been misrecognized. Though Russia may have acted as if it were a partner, this invasion of Ukraine suggests we ought to go back to consider how their partnership may have sidetracked resolutions of crisis elsewhere. Second, we know that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine magnifies the problem of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the 1994 treaty guarantee of its sovereignty by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Unless that agreement holds, and Russia withdraws, the world will enter a new stage of disregard for the rule of law and treaty. Third, we now see that the policy of ReSet was ridiculous. But the US is not alone in wishful thinking. Germany has been especially complicit in myopia, as Andreas Umland has argued (http://umland.livejournal.com/84516.html). In retrospect, the EU and the USA should have paid more heed to the critical dispositions associated with Polish and Baltic foreign policy. Failure to recognize possible Russian aggression, and to be willing to listen to Russian diplomatic dissimulation, enabled this crisis to take place. Fourth, those with little sympathy for Ukraine itself could view Euromaidan as a destabilizing endeavor that the West should not have supported. That kind of realism does not recognize the rights and aspirations of normal people in Ukraine, first of all, and second, does not acknowledge the ways in which an increasingly globalized world demands that publics be respected. We should expect more Euromaidans of the future, and stand with them if we are to be on the side of history. It’s easy to recognize analytical failure after the fact, with diplomatic debacles in tow. One needs clarity in analytical thinking in the midst of crisis, and this is what I see. First, one must avoid the risk of war at all costs. Ukraine is already doing that, refusing to engage militarily over Ukraine, but mobilizing to protect itself from an invasion of its mainland. Ukraine cannot stop Russia by itself, but it can, and will, inflict substantial casualties on Russian soldiers even while civilian losses will be considerable. This military confrontation is unacceptable. At the same time, NATO needs provide to Ukraine all the intelligence and cyber security it might, and make that known to Russia, so that Russia becomes aware of the even greater costs its incursion will cause. Second, and more substantial, is that Russian citizens, and especially their wealthy, must become clearly aware of the costs of this invasion to them. Unless Russia withdraws its troops from those parts of Crimea not directly associated with its Sevastopol naval facility, the European Union and North America should immediately deny visas to Russian citizens. It probably should ban only a certain wealth class of citizens, for there are too many Russian colleagues whose presence I treasure and whose collaboration is critical to globalizing knowledge and civility. But Russia’s ruling class needs to know the costs of this war, and they need to stop it. Tim Snyder makes that point here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116812/how-europe-should-respond-russian-intervention-ukraine Third, the real economic costs for that class, and the country, will be starkly evident without any policy work tomorrow. The Russian economy will decline sharply, as Western investors and creditors will dump Russian commercial ties like the risky bet that they are. That process will be intensified if Western banks are no longer homes to the massive capital flight Russian oligarchs regularly stimulate with their wealth. Here, Austria could take a lead given the ways in which its banks are so deeply tied to Russia’s ruling economic class. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin’s criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia today are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia’s own police. Those demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. Of all the pieces I have read in these last hours, Alexander Motyl’s is perhaps the most tragic, and realistic. He writes, Putin's incursion suggests that he must fear Ukraine -- so much so that he is willing to risk Russia's prosperity and stability. Putin the rational Bismarckian geostrategist has clearly given way to Putin the irrational and impulsive leader -- possibly as a result of the triumph of the democratic revolution in Ukraine. This may be the only ray of light in an otherwise catastrophic picture. Bad leaders make bad mistakes and, when they do, their power often disintegrates. Unfortunately, thousands of Ukrainians and Russians may have to die before that happens (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/01/putin_russia_ukraine_intervention_war) Motyl’s “only ray of light” is the kind of thing all analysts must keep in mind as they envision diplomacy after invasion. The era in which negotiations with dictators ensures stability is over, if it ever truly existed. This era in which we respect their publics and work to find a common ground in human rights and democracy’s extension is the new realism. Euromaidan has shown that way, but it won’t prove its point unless the world stands up to Russia’s criminal invasion in a way that is far smarter than past practice suggests capable. It is, however, necessary. Diplomatic and Analytical Failure in the face of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy February 28, 2014, 9:00 pm EST It was not hard to anticipate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We knew it was possible given the invasion by Russian troops of Georgia in 2008. We knew Russia could rely on some Crimean residents to say they needed protection from Ukrainian nationalists now in power, when they were not, in fact, at risk. We knew that Sevastopol, the port on Crimea’s coast, was important for Russia. It serves as the country’s only warm weather port for its navy. We should have expected that Russia could do anything to defend it. Even if we knew they would protect their interests, we should have expected they would go beyond the minimum and occupy the whole of the Crimean peninsula. We should have anticipated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And yet we act as if we cannot believe it. President Obama is “deeply concerned”. That’s not good enough. This is major diplomatic failure on the part of the West. I look forward to hearing the “consequences” with which President Obama threatens Russia. Georgia’s former President, Mikheil Saakashvili, recommends kicking Russia out of the G8 and going after Russian elite bank accounts in the West. That hardly seems like enough. Canadian diplomats acknowledge, frankly, that they do not have the firepower to challenge Russia toe to toe. They depend on US leadership. But I do not see it. And that is because Western actors refuse to recognize Russian power for what it is. Putin’s regime will recognize international legal regimes when convenient, and violate them when it’s not. Putin’s regime will act in ways that shock liberal values, and act as if it complies with those values when they violate them. David Remnick says that Putin enjoys watching Europe and United States “squirm”. This is Russian Great Power ideology, and if this Russian takeover of Crimea is successful, this ideology will find its confirmation in the exercise of force. That extends even beyond Ukraine, must as we now feel the effects of Russian “success” in their invasion of Georgia. So much for the non-violent democratic revolution embodied in Euromaidan. We now see that past transformations like it, the so-called “color revolutions”, depended on Russian acquiescence, a disposition no longer apparent. ReSet was, in retrospect, ridiculous. The West failed to recognize Russian Great Power, increasingly anxious about its own legitimacy at home, projecting its power abroad to distract its own public from the pseudo-democracy that Putin proclaims with the phrase “sovereign democracy”. Euromaidan, the Ukrainian Revolution, is Russia’s greatest nightmare. It’s a nightmare not because it risks moving Ukraine beyond a Eurasian Customs Union. The New Ukraine would have found compromise between Russia and Europe. It is a nightmare because it tells Russian citizens that pseudo-democracy is not all that the majority of Soviet descendents deserve. If Ukraine could develop a country based on dignity, human rights, and the rule of law, why not Russia? Ukrainians knew this, and they pressed forward. The West, stuck in their visions of clashing civilizations, could not recognize how populations learn, change, and become something different than how they were born. Putin understood this better than the West, and that is why he acts to suppress Ukraine by its dismememberment, and should he find resistance, full-scale war. The West does not just need to rethink diplomacy, to devise ever smarter sanctions, to figure how to exclude Russia from the global network the West dominates. The West needs to recognize the dynamics of social change itself, the promise of Ukraine, and the fragility of Russia itself. We should not respond to Russia as if it is a child with a tantrum that needs to be coddled, We need to distinguish the Russian people from Putin and his regime, and recognize that the Russian people have the same potential as the Ukrainian people in their own self-emancipation. With that recognition, what does diplomacy in this crisis look like? It certainly does not begin with being “deeply concerned”. It demands we name Putin’s regime as it is. This is a criminal regime invading a sovereign country. Recognize it and label it for what it is. And maybe if that was the starting point 10 days ago, we would not be at a loss for what to do before invasion today. (February 26, 2014) “Expertise and Ukraine in Transformation” Watson Institute for International Studies “Ask the Expert” https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 Michael D. Kennedy The transformations of Ukraine over the past three months have been breathtaking.  Ukraine has not only installed a different government, it has become a different country.  We all now know the meaning of Maidan – a Ukrainian word with Turkish roots, implying both a physical space and public discussion.  The gathering of Ukrainians on Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti or Майдан Незалежності) in Kyiv last November spawned a new hashtag – #Euromaidan – in virtual space.  The “Euro” in Euromaidan reflected the original protest against Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s decision to withdraw from an association agreement with the European Union.  That hashtag and related activity reveal a new global community engaged in the transformation of Ukraine.  Twitter life in Euromaidan’s address across the world can even be found in this infographic. That transformation of public engagement within Ukraine and across the world should also inspire a new kind of expertise, one that is not only sanctioned by hierarchies of knowledge and power, but that is also crowd-sourced, maybe even Facebook mobilized.  And that’s why the invitation to participate in an Ask the Expert project was so appealing. In addition to being a student of social change in Eastern and Central Europe, I am also a sociologist of intellectuals and knowledge.  I am not always comfortable with an appellation of “expert,” especially at a time when changes are so profound that expertise can be newly grounded and past experts outdated. The questions raised here reflect both past concerns and those emergent from the process of transformation itself. We should be careful not to allow past expert claims to define what we see.  For example, the distinction between East and West, especially between those parts of Ukraine once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and those more associated with the Russian, is well documented.  At the same time, we have seen in the process of transformation recognition of those fault lines, and struggles against threats to divide the country.  (Of course there are those who might wish to exploit those divisions in order to divide the country, too.) The transformation we see in Ukraine is not only extraordinarily dignified and courageous, but also remarkably knowledgeable.  However, the challenge Ukraine faces in the days, months, and years ahead is greater than what a national community can face by itself.  Certainly the country needs considerable financial resources, but it also needs a global range of expertise developed with its particular concerns in mind.  The discussion generated below is an example of how that might be done. In addition to issuing open calls for comments, I also mobilized my specific networks earned through more than 20 years of engagement with Ukrainian friends and colleagues, as well as those networks mobilized in the course of Euromaidan on Facebook and Twitter.  I said this on Twitter:https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 "Let's flip "ask the expert": what questions might experts pose to policy makers and publics re Ukrainian Revolution?". You can see what they say, and my comments in response, here. Move Beyond Concern to Consequence in Supporting Ukraine’s Revolution Michael D. Kennedy February 22, 2014 It is now time for the European Union and the United States to provide the kind of support and recognition the brave men and women of Euromaidan, and of the whole of Ukraine, now deserve in the wake of their largely non-violent revolution. Ukraine has realized that revolution almost despite the limited solidarity it has enjoyed from the European Union and the United States. Yes diplomacy is tricky, and the West could not do so much as to give substance to those views in Russia and elsewhere that find Western conspiracies in making all kinds of change. But many in Ukraine have soured over these last months on the vision and decency of the West as all that could be heard on the squares of revolution were diplomatic invocations of concern. Yes Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, and the foreign ministers of France and Germany, may have intervened at just the right time when they mediated negotiations between Maidan’s political spokespersons and Yanukovych. Sikorski says that they enabled this day’s definition in negotiation’s terms, rather than the martial law then President Yanukovych threatened. But I would like to think our European emissaries smarter than that. What they did was to give Yanukovych a way out, one that enabled the opposition to focus on parliamentary maneuver to bring back a less executive constitution and to refashion leadership in the parliament. It also gave space for the decent to leave Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. We can rely on historians for the proper interpretation of these last days. Now we need to think of what these last hours mean for how to move ahead. First, we need to think of the abiding dangers. There are no doubt some in the south and east of Ukraine who are trying to construct scenarios to take back power in Kyiv. They are fools, but dangerous fools. There are more who consider whether breaking Ukraine apart is possible. They are not so foolish, and they are also more dangerous. No doubt Russia is contemplating the same thing as they worry about their own Black Sea naval power and base in Crimea. The European Union, and especially NATO, cannot blink right now. Ukraine has restored democracy, and the full force of NATO must stand with Ukraine against any kind of Russian intervention like what occurred in Georgia in 2008. Of course we cannot afford any kind of provocations like what the Georgian leadership gave to Russia to justify their moves into South Ossetia. That is why, above all, we need savvy political leadership in Ukraine, and outstanding diplomacy in its engagement. Sikorski has played a critical role here, and no doubt he is an extraordinarily good influence in these times. But we need more than savvy now. We need strategy and we need commitment to honor what Ukrainians have won through sheer courage and dignity. When I raised in social media the prospect of a new and epoch appropriate Marshall Plan, the applause was thunderous. This kind of commitment, not some kind of trivial symbolic gesture, is what Ukraine needs, what Ukraine deserves. At the same time, this kind of support must be assured of being invested in Ukraine, and not somehow used to pay off the substantial debt Ukraine owes to Russia first among all of its creditors. To invest in Ukrainian energy and the conversion of its extraordinarily inefficient energy consumption would be one place to start. But it’s not just money. We do not now have a sufficiently visionary leadership in Europe or the United States to imagine what it takes to bring Ukraine into the network of democracies it has so valiantly struggled to join. I would like to be proven wrong about my own country and its closest world ally. And I know I am not alone in that wish. I know some 45 million citizens in Ukraine who lost faith in the last few months over Western resolve. Now that we have responsible partners in Ukraine, there is no excuse for only being able to raise concern. It’s time to raise commitment. Honor what Ukraine has done today with a commitment to partnership with Ukraine. (February 23, 2014) “Ukraine’s Bully Must Be Removed” Providence Journal Michael D. Kennedy (written February 20, 2014 10:20 AM EST) The terror of the regime has gone too far. Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich must go, and those loyal to the nation and to a sense of decency and dignity for which that nation can stand must force him out. By the end of Wednesday, more than 40 protesters and bystanders had died, probably more. We don’t know how many protesters were burned alive in a fire the regime’s special police started. We do know that those forces are now using AK47s and armor piercing bullets to kill. They kill not just those who wield Molotov Cocktails, but they kill the medics who try to save protesters and police alike. The medical crisis grows, as health care providers struggle to find places where they can treat the injured as snipers rain bullets down on everyone indiscriminately, just as their stun grenades injure peaceful souls. There are also reports of various shutdowns -- of gas stations, bridges, and other modes of communication to prevent protesters' mobility. Of course Euromaidan and their allies resist. The most headline grabbing has been the capture of some 50 policemen whose fates are to be determined by negotiations. Some have reported the acquisition of weapons by opposition forces, using them to push back militia from the protesters’ zones of occupation. And some police have been killed. All of this bloodshed clearly stains the hands of President Viktor Yanukovych. The situation has now moved beyond the point of no return. There are many in his own Party of Regions who recognize this -- defections from his party now occur in far greater numbers than we have seen previously. Lviv leads the way among other cities in establishing its own self defense from Yanukoych forces. Their entire city is mobilized to prevent those forces of violence to enter their terrain. Foreign ministers from Poland, Germany and France are meeting with Yanukovych, although he had to take a break in order to take a call from Russian President Putin. I write from a distance. I don't have the resources available to me that my colleagues and friends who are from and expert on Ukraine have. Still, I can't imagine a negotiated settlement any longer. I cannot imagine, either, Yanukovych winning any election. That is now impossible. Too many people have been harmed for him ever to regain authority in any sense. The oligarchs whose fortunes are now at risk, must know this. Either he will be forced to resign, or military whose oaths are, in the end, to the people will ally with the protesters to depose him and those with him. On February 19, Yanukovych sacked his military chief, Col Gen Volodymyr Zamana, to replace him with Admiral Yuriy Ilyina from Crimea, someone putatively more personally loyal. Zamana refused, it is said, to allow regular military to be used in the assault on the Ukrainian people. This kind of split should be the beginning of the end for Yanukovych. The worry of many, still, is that Russia could intervene, using justifications that it used in Georgia in 2008 to invade and rescue those with affinities for the Russian Federation. Given the dispositions of many in Crimea and its strategic importance for Russia's naval fleet, I fear this is entirely possible in the coming days as well, especially after the Olympics conclude. Should this be attempted, I don't know that NATO could simply stand by. At least our diplomatic corps must be letting Putin know that NATO could express more than “concern” with such an outcome. While nobody would want such a conflagration, pathways made by others can trap actors with no intent of violence. We see this in Kyiv right now. And here is what I fear, and why those with the capacity to end this violence must do so now and immediately. There is no other way to do it than by deposing Yanukovych and declaring a transition government with full representation by Euromaidan forces. While Glory to Ukraine, the literal translation of Slava Ukraina, may sound odd to Western ears, it's hard not to end this reflection without that invocation. I hear it to mean “Blessings to Ukraine”. For in these days, Ukrainians of good will and dignity need more than weapons to save their country. They need the grace that comes by recognizing their common fates without and beyond Yanukovych and those who have killed innocent Ukrainian citizens. I pray for Ukraine in this moment. Slava Ukraina.  (December 5, 2013 ) “A Nonviolent Revolution in Ukraine” Providence Journal Michael D. Kennedy Ukraine is in a revolutionary moment. I hope it’s negotiated. For nearly two weeks, people have occupied squares across Ukraine, and most prominently, and critically, in the nation’s capital, Kyiv. They initially assembled to support their country’s Association Agreement with the European Union, then to protest President Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the agreement, and then to demand his resignation after his special militia attacked peaceful protesters on Independence Square, the home of the Orange Revolution. As I write, portions of that protest occupy Kyiv’s City Hall. Lviv’s mayor has declared that his city stands with the protest, and will not tolerate armed intervention from without. This dynamic enjoys incredible movement energy. All across Ukraine, and across the world in the Ukrainian diaspora and among their friends, more than 1 million people have mobilized in support of “Euromaidan”, the hashtag denominating a new horizontalist movement demanding Ukraine’s European future. Students have led the way to an alternative Ukraine. And now people from across regions, classes, and generations join them in the struggle. They have mobilized long abiding and innovative social movement techniques to pressure policy choices. Even the 2004 Eurovision song contest winner, Ruslana, used her singing energy to keep the protesters in good spirits, and then after the crackdown, ushered the injured to sanctuary in St. Michael’s Cathedral. Pop music mixes w/ religious devotion in redefining the meaning of the Ukrainian nation away from the rule its oligarchs have crafted. Much of the Ukrainian oligarchy is tied to the East, and to Russia. Those interests not only conspire with Vladimir Putin to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of interest, but they also hire hooligans to beat citizens who dare to embrace that European future in their cities. They are feverishly looking for a way to hold on to their power. Already we see demonstrations in Kharkiv in support of change. That eastern city, once identified with Russia, now witnesses struggles to identify with the future instead. They join some oligarchs who already say yes to Europe. Those oligarchs see the promise of more regularity in law, more transparency in commerce, and fairer competition in democracy to be a better long term investment in their country’s future, and to securing their own wealth. Yulia Tymoshenko, the country’s former prime minister now many months in prison as a victim of Yanukovych’s selective justice, was perceived to be the West’s principal ally. Her release became the principal condition for the EU improving ties with Ukraine. But today, the spirit of Euromaidan eclipses all the oligarchs, west and east, in jail and in power. Repression cannot end this revolution. However, it’s quite possible that things will spiral out of control and a brutal state of martial law could be imposed. In fact, just that kind of “state of emergency” might be declared even when things are not out of control. Already authorities use agents provocateur to suggest such unruliness. But hundreds of thousands of citizens work hard to keep their protests peaceful. Clearly one faction of the ruling party wants a confrontation to impose their will, in what some call the way of Putin. But the Russian president never had hundreds of thousands of his citizens rising up against him. For that reason, force is not an option, although some may pursue it. There is a better alternative future for Ukraine: President Yanukovych’s resignation. Few like to recall the way in which Poland’s negotiated revolution took place in 1989. Of course it depended on a mobilized civil society united behind Lech Walesa and Solidarnosc, but its peaceful outcome depended on President and General Wojciech Jaruzelski negotiating his ultimate exit from power. One might even recall Ukraine’s Orange Revolution itself. Then President Leonid Kuchma did not, as his protégé Yanukovych wished, declare a state of emergency and crush the revolution. Whatever his past accomplishments, or faults, Kuchma enabled that peaceful Orange Revolution to carry on. Indeed, in 2011 he told me that, by refusing to crush that Orange Revolution, he proved Ukraine a European nation. These examples of European revolutionary situations over the last 25 years show that it’s not only a mobilized civil society, but also an elite that recognizes when its historical role is to negotiate the end to its rule. There was some promise of movement on that score on December 3, but the Ukrainian parliament voted down a motion of no confidence in the government. Only one person from the ruling party crossed over, and many legislators simply abstained. The possibilities for violent confrontation grow. There is one way out. President Yanukovych could serve his nation best by, together with his government, resigning and enabling a nonviolent revolution in Ukraine. (June 21, 2013) “Occupy Movements Around the World: How Is Brazil’s Different?” HuffPost (Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Michael D. Kennedy) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gianpaolo-baiocchi/occupy-movements-around-t_b_3480620.html (the longer version) Some journalists call the protests "Occupy the Brazilian Streets".  Of course Occupy Wall Street began the theme in 2011, but that was in turn inspired by what was happening in Egypt's Tahrir Square.  European protests, notably among the Indignados in Spain, were of a similar quality.  These local moments of a global occupy movement are a new stage in the history of protest. "Horizontalist" movements, those emphasizing direct democracy and collective decision making in opposition to political vanguards or parties, are beyond left and right.  They claim that the elite, both financial and political, have lost touch with the citizenry and with the public goods governments are supposed to provide. All these movements challenge the corruption of local, national, and global elites. That being said, the global occupy movement has different local and national expressions.  Some are divided politically despite claims to the contrary: in the USA, the Tea Party movement and Occupy have similar grievances, but the former fails to recognize the implication of some of the Republican political elite and financial elite as part of the problem.  In other cases, notably among the Indignados, no political elite is worth supporting and the Indignados are relatively united in their quest to assure the autonomy of the movement from political parties. Another variation is violence. Brazil, Turkey and Egypt have suffered more explicit and extreme violence than other occupy struggles.  In some cases, my Turkish colleagues tell me, the state's agents provocateurs, posing as protesters, threw molotov cocktails in order to justify police violence.  After a week of police brutality, Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff praised the police in Rio for their restraint on Monday night. And that is part of what makes Brazil different from all these other sites of occupy struggle. Brazil’s ruling party is grounded in workers' and popular struggle for more rights; few other elites worry about "being on the wrong side of history", as Gilberto Carvalho, Rousseff's secretary general, expressed. Indeed, the youth wing of that ruling Workers Party has itself expressed solidarity with the protesters. No wing of the ruling Turkish party has come out in support of Occupy Gezi. Brazil is also different because it has a civil society accustomed to struggle, learned in how popular participation can change national trajectories. Indeed, its innovations in participatory budgeting have taught the world that the public can figure how government moneys should be spent. At the same time, Brazil’s Workers Party government is also seduced by the allures of great power potlatch as they invest enormous resources in hosting the World Cup next year and Olympics two years later.  The fact that Brazilians can protest this allocation of resources as a sign of the corruption of public values is testimony to Brazil's legacy of participatory democracy. Where forward? Two thoughts. First, given the novelty of these movements on the stage of world history we have no longstanding theory on which to base predictions.  Movements do have cycles and rhythms, but precisely because they are acts of creative worldmaking, they can also defy expectations.  Occupy movements on a world scale have demonstrated that, and continue to evolve in new ways.  Their trajectory depends more on government response than the movements themselves. If the authorities negotiate with protesters, listen to the protests, and figure ways to stand with their just concerns, their protest will sooner fade and move into new policies and practices addressing injustice.  If authorities respond with violence, the movement may lose a few faint of heart, but the core of the movement will feel even more righteous in their commitment to escalating the conflict.  In such violence, nobody wins. But these movements offer hope, and that's the second thought. While these are horizontalist movements, there are rings to those who occupy.  Their cores are built around those with years of movement experience and are more directly committed to mobilizing for their sense of justice.  The outer ring includes those who continue to see value in organizing around electoral contest. Brazil has many not only in the core, but also that outer ring. But it’s a tough place to be. It’s a tough calculation – how will the response to protests affect upcoming elections? But it’s more than calculation. Many of those in the Workers’ Party came to politics through popular struggle. For them to be in the office and not in the streets is fraught with contradiction, and real emotion. Those occupying this outer ring may decide the course of democracy’s future. To the extent they can highlight outcomes of the people's struggles in the priorities of their elected leaders, representative democracy may regain some legitimacy.  To the extent the elite misses the point of protest, democracy is itself at risk. And that’s a risk the world over. (February 3, 2012) “Poles Rallying for Our Digital Freedom” Providence Journal B6 Are the Poles crazy? Does the international Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) really endanger freedom? And why should that matter to us? When Wikipedia went dark in protest on Jan.18, the digital public took notice that something was wrong. And wrong it was. Advocates of Internet freedom warned that legislation going through Congress – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the House, and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), in the Senate - risked tilting the balance toward the interests of content producers defending corporate intellectual property, and away from the innovation/creativity through sharing that has characterized the Internet. The electronic mobilization on that day and the lobbying that surrounded it moved our representatives away from misconceived legislation. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. Little did the broader public appreciate that the U.S. had already enacted the ACTA, in October 2011, as an international executive agreement, through which the U.S. will ultimately have to develop new legislation to be in compliance. We will face the Son of SOPA once the ACTA takes effect, if it takes effect. Because the ACTA was not a treaty, it was not submitted to democratic deliberation. That could raise questions about its constitutionality, which could then let the U.S. public debate the ACTA. But it should watch Europe to prepare for that discussion. On Jan. 26, representatives of most of the European Union's countries, as well as the E.U.'s executive branch representative, signed the agreement. And the usual protests took place, similar to what happened in the U.S. around the SOPA and the PIPA. The techno-savvy jammed Internet discussion, but this protest had another element that shows a more dangerous derivative of democratic deficit around Internet governance. Anonymous, the group best known for its Guy Fawkes mask from "V for Vendetta" fame, hacked and shut down Polish government Web sites on Jan. 22 to protest the ruling party's support for the ACTA. Although many denounced this kind of virtual violence, inspiring Polish Premier Donald Tusk to declare he would not be blackmailed, it also raised awareness in ways that recalled the Wikipedia blackout over the SOPA. Except this time, instead of legislators changing legislation following reasoned discussion, Anonymous hactivism highlighting Poland's executive fait accompli moved thousands of  protesters into the streets. Across more than 20 cities in Poland people, especially the young, marched to demand that their fundamental rights stay protected, and that their interests as citizens take precedence over the rights of content providers worried about losing money due to copyright nfringement. Most experts acknowledge that existing copyright laws are inadequate for the Digital Age. I participated in an International Bar Association meeting about similar issues a year ago; lawyers typically argued that we needed new legislation, with the debate between Internet Service Providers (ISP) and content providers going back and forth. But the techno-savvy said the debate is all wrong: The technology is changing so fast that legislating copyrights without recognizing how the digital era creates new economies and new public goods is like trying to demand in 1930 that those on horseback should get a license because people with cars have them. We need legislation that preserves the Internet as a public good, and recognizes legitimate concerns over copyright. In particular, we need to recognize and support the new business models coming along with this new technology so that private interests and public goods can be in sync again. The ACTA is better than it was, but it is still not good enough. We also need to be concerned about basic democratic rights in the process. Here are just some of the concerns experts have identified: The ACTA extends the range of those liable for infringing on intellectual property (IP) rights too far, from those who directly infringe to those who enable copyright infringement, such as ISP's. Moreover, ISP's become subject to criminal prosecution, and not just civil suits, as they are now. And when we add in such vague notions as "indirect economic advantage," even such innocent things as noncommercial file-sharing could become cause for action. "Fair use" of copyrighted materials could disappear under the ACTA. With this liability, IP rights holders and ISP's wind up governing who has access to the Internet, and who does not. Neither of those agencies is democratically accountable. The Poles got it before any other public. They have a tradition of mobilization - remember how their 1980-81 Solidarity movement began communism's unraveling? They have a tradition of freedom - "for your freedom and ours" was their 19th Century rallying cry for independence. They are a big European nation, with lots of wired young people - a big "digital native" population. And while their leadership is liberal, their politicos are out of digital touch. Otherwise, they would have known. And now everyone can learn from their mistake. In fact, Premier Tusk has already backed down, and said that he is suspending the ratification process, and will have an open meeting about it on Monday. The European Parliament is now up in arms about this legislation, which will not be ratified unless this branch of the European Union approves it. And that approval is looking more doubtful over time, as representatives listen to their public, and publics mobilize across the E.U. More than 50 publics across Europe plan protests in the next few days ( http://www.mediarp.pl/acta/mapa-protestow). The French Member of European Parliament charged with being the ACTA's lead negotiator has already quit. The European Parliament may listen to its citizens and shut this legislation down and go back to the drawing board to make it more transparent. It would be good if President Obama could empower his legislature to do the same so that what the Poles have inspired in Europe might become common sense in America, too. For your digital freedom and ours. (October 20, 2011) “An Ex-Premiere’s Plight and the Future of Ukrainian Freedom and Democracy” Providence Journal, B7 Democracy dictates the law in Ukraine, at least if Orwell’s 1984 is its model. Last Tuesday, Ukraine’s criminal justice system sentenced former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to seven years in prison for exceeding her political authority in office during negotiations of a gas deal with Russia. Whether or not she goes to prison, it is actually the current president, Viktor Yanukovych, who will be the bigger loser because he may have just lost the chance to recover his democratic reputation. Ukraine, however, could very well be the biggest loser. Mr. Yanukovych claimed victory in the 2004 presidential elections, but the Orange Revolution overturned what many considered a fraudulent outcome. Viktor Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were the heroes of that revolution, and became president and prime minister, respectively. Their own relationship soured while in office, and in the past year has become terrible; worse, their combined leadership of the country was not what it could have been, at least in the eyes of most of the Ukrainian electorate. In 2010, the man ousted by the revolution came back to defeat the Orange Revolutionaries in what were widely deemed fair elections. While Mr. Yanukovych may not have been the West’s preferred leader, most in the world celebrated evidence of democracy’s further consolidation in Ukraine. This week, most in the West castigate democracy’s caricature in Ukraine, where the legal system is used to win political contest. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is exceptionally forceful on this, having tweeted, “We have reacted strongly against the… sentence against Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine. This will endanger the entire relationship.” But Mr. Yanukovych knew this would be the results of this outcome; Mr. Bildt and Mr. Yanukovych had a face to face meeting about this in September, and public discussion in Yalta last month among leaders of Ukraine and representatives of the European Union and its member states said, in no uncertain terms that her imprisonment would have dire consequences for the European-Ukrainian relationship (http://yes-ukraine.org/en/Yalta-annual-meeting/2011). Mr. Yanukovych knew what he was doing. One may have confidence in Mr. Yanukovych’s foresight if his intention was to push Europe away so that the customs union offered by Russia and other former Soviet republics would become Ukraine’s default transnational association. He knew that by carrying out Tymoshenko’s prosecution, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU now on the table could be scuttled. And with that scuttling, he need not carry out the systematic reforms of the legislative and judicial systems essential for ending the country’s suffocating corruption, as he simultaneously hobbled one of his most prominent critics. And here is the West’s diplomatic dilemma. The European Union could play into Russia’s hands by denying that agreement to Ukraine, which, in turn, would limit even more the leverage the West could exercise in supporting democracy’s deepening in Ukraine. If the West is to live up its principles, those in Sweden, the Netherlands, and other parts of the west EU argue, this denial is what must be done. But others, knowing the challenge of moving beyond the corruptions made by communist legacies and postcommunism’s possibilities, suggest a more targetted pressure, with particular visa bans and freezing assets abroad for example. Ukraine, as a country, needs that DCFTA with Europe to continue its progress, at least according to its leading entrepreneurs and business people trying to make a more legal rational, and less kleptocratic, capitalism. In the end, however, this is about Yulia Tymoshenko and the other opposition figures against whom selective prosecutions have been carried out. Human rights groups within and beyond the country have been careful not to judge whether she exceeded her authority as prime minister, much less made a good deal for Ukraine. But they are universally agreed: she should be freed. President Yanukovych has an out, he thinks; he has said repeatedly that the law under which Ms. Tymoshenko was charged is outdated, and must be changed. That may lead to her release, and that outcome is just. But what will be even more just is if she is not only released, but that Europe, and those next elected in Ukraine, work together to assure that the rule of law and the judiciary don’t resemble a scene from Orwell’s 1984. President Yanukovych: live up to your promise and don’t make George Orwell required reading in my next course addressing democracy in Ukraine. And to my colleagues in the EU leadership: find a way to pressure Ukrainian leaders without setting back Ukrainian reform and integration with Europe. (October 19, 2004) “Are Poles Bushmen?” Chicago Tribune The Polish government's announcement that it would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq during 2005 is not the October surprise most of the media anticipate, but it certainly should come as a surprise to President Bush given his emphasis during the first two presidential debates on Poland's role in Iraq. In order to survive a vote of confidence, Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka announced that Poland would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq next year. Had Bush read the polls, and the Poles, better, he might have seen that Poland is not quite the country he imagined. He had good reason to hope so, of course, given that Poland was the only European country, and one of only four countries in a worldwide system of preferences about the upcoming American presidential elections, to support Bush (31 percent) over Sen. John Kerry (26 percent, with the rest unsure). In that light, Poland's leading daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, asked whether Poles were, in fact, "Bushmen." Poland has certainly been Bush's strongest supporter in continental Europe. About 2,500 Polish troops are contributing to security in Iraq, where they struggle to defend antiquity's Babylonian treasures among other challenges. Poland lost 13 soldiers, and many Poles anticipate that Poland, like Spain, also could be victims of terrorist attack due to the Polish presence in Iraq. One year ago, 40 percent of the Polish public supported the assignment of their troops in Iraq, according to a leading public opinion polling organization, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. As in America, there's no simple answer for who likes Bush in Poland. The president's support is obviously greater among those who identify with the political right, but he also gets much greater support from those over 55, villagers, the unemployed and less educated, as well as the upper-middle class. Kerry is much more likely to get the support of students, lower-level managers and farmers. Kerry also gets the vote of secular Poland, while Bush wins among those who go to church regularly. The most devout Poles, however, split their vote. I think that's because of the war in Iraq. Nobody in Poland, or in America, ever explained adequately to the faithful how this self-identified Christian president could prosecute a war that Pope John Paul II so obviously opposed. The Catholic doctrine of a just war sees violence as a last resort, not as freedom's midwife. But freedom's ring can sometimes drown out moral doubt. It has done that, at least, among the hard core of Polish Bushmen. Enthusiastic support for Polish participation in the war has not fallen below 8 percent over the last 14 months, and 15 percent of the public actually like Bush's foreign policy. This makes sense. Poland has been defined by its struggle for freedom, and when President Bush invited Poland to join in the liberation of Iraq from tyranny, Polish principles inspired solidarity with America. But freedom's appeal is wearing thin, especially when it looks disingenuous. How can President Bush declare that Iraqis are living in freedom, one of my thoughtful Polish friends asked me, when political leaders and members of the press are not safe to be in public? How can Bush say that freedom was America's goal, when Americans appeal to dictators elsewhere for support? He speculated that Bush's neoconservative ideology made this quagmire, by identifying this unnecessary war with the struggle against terrorism. American military power can topple any regime, but military occupation cannot invent freedom in this part of the world, he said. This ideology overestimated the power of America and Iraq's readiness to become its Middle East replica. My friend is certainly no Bushman, and he reflects more and more of his countrymen. This European Bushmen bastion is crumbling. Over the last year, Polish support for their participation in this war in Iraq has declined to 26 percent from 40. President Bush's foreign policy has itself inspired the crumble--40 percent of the Polish public finds that policy to have worsened their opinion of America. Despite his association with the American political party and first family most identified with Poland's 1989 liberation from communism, President Bush actually enjoys less support in 2004 than he did in 2000, when 40 percent of Poles believed he would be better for Poland than Al Gore would (Gore received only 7 percent support). Former Polish President Lech Walesa put it simply on TV in Poland before his recent American sojourn--he supports John Kerry because he is better for Poland. What, I asked my thoughtful friend, could Kerry do better than Bush, if America cannot design democracy in Iraq? Simple, he said. Kerry won't lead an American invasion of Iran or Syria. Bush might, and that would put Poland in the terrible position of choosing between supporting their dear military ally and pursuing a foreign policy that is good for Poland. It will also divide the religious community between those who see violence as a last resort, like Pope John Paul II, and those who see violence as a means to peace. I now wonder whether the Polish newspaper's double meaning around Polish Bushmen wasn't so politically incorrect. Centuries of racism might make it difficult for Poles to identify with Africans. It may take only four more years of American Bushmen in power to destroy the special relationship Poland and the United States enjoy based on a common commitment to freedom and morality in world affairs. (December 11, 2001) “FBI Interviews Feel Hauntingly Familiar” Detroit Free Press When I learned about the FBI’s proposed interviews with young men on visas, I recalled my own 1984 interview in Poland. My conversation wasn’t “voluntary”, but it was disturbingly similar to what may be happening in 2001. I was waiting for the renewal of my visa in the Polish government office when a secretary told me that I would have to wait longer. An official wanted to speak with me. I waited for nearly 15 minutes, and thought through all the things that he, and I, might say. I needed to be careful. Another scholar had been deported in the previous year. I would weigh my words carefully. A charming and gracious man came into the hall and invited me to his office. He asked how I liked Poland and whether I had Polish family. No, I was an Irish-American, and I appreciated the hospitality of the Polish people. How was my research going? Yes, I was continuing to work on the occupational structure of Polish professions, and I had learned a lot from my colleagues in sociology. And what did I think about Solidarity? This “Big Brother” was asking me what I thought about the independent trade union and social movement that was crushed by the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981. What could I say? I went to Poland because the 1980-81 Solidarity movement inspired me to think beyond political conventions, and to find hope in the struggle against tyranny and for social justice. In the course of my research, my sociology of professions evolved into an analysis of how professionals and workers allied in the Solidarity movement. I spoke to many physicians who were active in the underground, but we were careful never to implicate one another. But how much did this agent know? What should I say? I steered the discussion in an academic direction. I explained it was difficult to have an opinion of such a large and complicated movement without having good data, but then referred to what some Polish sociologists sympathetic to the government had said about the ubiquity of industrial conflict. He was an intelligent man, and enjoyed the intellectual banter. At one point I recall telling him that his analysis didn’t seem Marxist, at which he laughed. I wasn’t laughing. While I was surprised by my cool, I also was unschooled in dealing with interrogations by intelligence officers. I worried at every moment about what I might say – how a careless comment or a casual reference to a colleague could get them in trouble. And of course I was concerned about myself. I didn’t expect to be detained, but I had just spent eight months in the field gathering data for my doctoral dissertation. What would happen to all that work if my need to keep the Polish government at arms length led them to confiscate my materials and send me home two months early? I had reason to worry. I had already heard about these tactics. Polish-American students sometimes attended medical schools in Poland. Toward the end of their stay, intelligence officers would ask them to become informants. No doubt the medical students’ agents could be as kind and gracious as my interlocutor, but these students were at an even greater disadvantage than I. The authorities could revoke an American’s visa and send him home with no degree to show for years of study. Most of my American friends in Poland resisted that pressure, and I knew no one who failed to get their degree because of political interference. But we all wondered whether any one of us became an informant. I never compromised my friends and colleagues associated with Solidarity, but the officer so much “enjoyed” our conversation that he promised to call on me again. By traveling as much as I could, I avoided that meeting and the cruel compromises Big Brother would try to force on me. Of course those were very different times, and a very different place than present day America. In 1984, George Orwell’s Big Brother was on our minds. My Big Brother represented communists in power who sought to destroy a movement that was non-violent. Other comparisons are less comforting: The Polish authorities were not detaining Americans, and if deported, Americans would return to a democracy where their rights would be respected. Americans also did not worry whether the perception of being an informant would lead Solidarity to threaten family or friends. In 2001, Big Brother seems to comfort us. We feel like we need someone strong and better informed to assure our security. A Russian student enrolled at an American university recently remarked that this new surveillance does not bother her at all, for they have been doing this in Russia for quite some time. She is used to it. I can’t know whether FBI invitations to "interview" young men on visas from certain countries will enhance our security. I only know it feels an awful lot like what I got to know in 1984. I hope America doesn’t get used to it. 103

Opposite the Editorial Page: Cultural Political Interventions Michael D. Kennedy Original Texts Below the List of Publications/Interviews Television Interviews Story in the Public Square on the Sociological Imagination, Globalizing Knowledge, and the Time of Trump, March 22, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5P88I4YuD0 WPRI Newsmakers Political Roundtable on Donald Trump, February 17, 2017 http://wpri.com/2017/02/17/newsmakers-2172016-political-roundtable-on-president-trump/ State of Mind with Dan Yorke July 18, 2017 “Questioning Democracy in Crisis” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/07/19/718-questioning-democracy-in-crisis-on-state-of-mind/ (with Dan Cammarano) June 16, 2017 “Dissecting Law vs. Loyalty in the Time of Trump” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/06/16/616-dissecting-law-versus-loyalty-in-the-trump-era-on-state-of-mind/ (with Tim Edgar) March 21, 2017 “Brown University Sociologist Questions the Moment of President Trump’s Downfall” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/03/22/321-brown-university-sociologist-questions-the-moment-of-president-trumps-downfall-on-state-of-mind/ February 7, 2017 “Probing Comments on Putin’s State of Mind” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/02/07/27-probing-trumps-comments-on-putin-on-state-of-mind/ January 3, 2017 “Twitter Policy Transformations and Russian Hacking Analysis” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/01/03/13-twitter-policy-transformations-and-russian-hacking-analysis-on-state-of-mind/ March 12, 2014 on Ukraine http://wpri.com/2014/03/12/312-brown-univ-professors-on-state-of-mind/ (with Anna Lysyanskaya) Print/Blog: (July 19, 2017) “Not Even the Art of the Fool: Trump’s the Tsar’s Dupe” Riot Material (June 15, 2017) “On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism” Riot Material (May 27, 2017) “Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/78143-2/ (May 26, 2017) “Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump” (an introduction to a series of student papers on the sociological imagination after Trump) RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/sociology-trump1/ (May 25, 2017) “The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” http://www.rifuture.org/the-impending-legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ (April 7, 2017) Interviewed in G. Wayne Miller, “Foreign-policy experts assess impact of missile strike against Syria” Providence Journal with additional thoughts below (March 30, 2017) “Attacking Higher Education Kills More than Academic Freedom” http://www.ehu.lt/en/news/show/prof-michael-kennedy-attacking-higher-education-kills-more-than-academic-freedom (March 2, 2017) “Trump’s Articulation of the Nation” http://www.rifuture.org/trumps-articulation-of-the-nation/ (I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017 at the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs) (February 21, 2017) “The Conflicts and Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/conflicts-contradictions-trump-legitimation-crisis/ (February 15, 2017) “The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ (February 3, 2017) “On Explaining Trump in the World: In Response to Maria Eugenia Plano and Paula Lugones” portions of this response can be found in Spanish in this interview: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/comportamiento-erratico-magnate-domesticado_0_SyovmDCdx.html (January 30, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #MuslimBan in Providence Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-the-muslimban/#.WJUw2rYrK8o (January 22, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-and-the-womensmarch/#.WJUwnLYrK8o (December 29, 2016) “On Democracy in Poland 2016: In Response to Dario Mizrahi” portions of this response are found in http://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2016/12/31/crece-la-alarma-en-europa-por-un-pais-que-se-desliza-hacia-al-autoritarismo/ (November 22, 2016) “Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump” http://www.rifuture.org/recurrent-and-resurgent-whiteness-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 11, 2016) “Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump” http://policytrajectories.asa-comparative-historical.org/2016/11/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/#more-546 an extended version: http://www.rifuture.org/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 9, 2016) “Call It By Its Name” (on the Trump Victory) in http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident (November 8, 2016) “Solidarity in America” (October 10, 2016) “The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump” RI Future (July 28, 2016) “The Politics of Progressive Identification and the DNC” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/politics-of-progressive-identification-dnc.html (July 21, 2016) “Ideology in the Time of Trump Is Fantasy” (http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html; an abbreviated version of which can be found here: http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FantasyofTrump) (June 24, 2016) “On Brexit: Breaking a System Does Not Fix the Problems” http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FacultyCommentaryBrexit (April 25, 2016) “Why People Feel the Bern: The Movement for Democracy Beyond Elections” reentitled “Bernie Sanders for Rhode Island” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-for-rhode-island.html (March 10, 2016) “Solidarity or Escapism” (September 25, 2015) “Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, Who Is Your Favorite Superhero and Why? (September 5, 2015) “Brexit, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity” http://www.queries-feps.eu/brexit-ubermensch-escapism-and-anglo-american-european-solidarity/ (August 1, 2015) “Bernie Sanders is Captain America” Michael D. Kennedy, Jane Goodman and Steven Goodman (July 29, 2015) “A Comparative and Historical Sociology of Alternative Futures” WebForum for the 2016 International Sociological Association meetings. http://futureswewant.net/michael-kennedy-comparing-alternative-futures/ (December 11, 2014) “Negotiating Revolution from Poland to Hong Kong?” (December 5, 2014) “Engaging Intellectuals and Politicians” University World News http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141203123125417 (December 3, 2014) “Rethinking the Social Question: Where is Class in Trade and Where Does Latin America Belong” Stanford University Press Blog http://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/rethinking-the-social-question.html (April 18, 2014) “Rethinking Catastrophe in Ukraine” (April 17, 2014) “Defining Ukraine: Domestic Politics in the Shadow of Catastrophe,” a panel with Dominque Arel, Margarita Balmaceda, Mychailo Wynnyckyj and me available onwebcast here http://watson.brown.edu/events/2014/defining-ukraine-domestic-politics-shadow-catastrophe (March 12, 2014) “This Is Not a New Cold War: Engaging Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine” (March 7, 2014) “Solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s Reality” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/03/solidarity-with-ukraine-against-putins-reality/#.Uxo5G17TM7B (March 5, 2014) Ukraine Teach In at Brown University (video) http://mediacapture.brown.edu:8080/ess/echo/presentation/3eaef26e-e381-478d-8549-ba8863be85ea w/ commentary from the Providence Journal: http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140305-at-brown-putin-s-actions-seen-having-lengthy-repercussions.ece Brown Daily Herald: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2014/03/06/teach-explores-roots-ukrainian-political-upheaval/ (March 5, 2014) “The West Should Stop Squirming and Put Sanctions on Russia” Michael D. Kennedy and Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/us-should-put-sanctions-on-russia (March 5, 2014) “If the West Stands Up to Putin, Russian Economy Will Pay Heavy Cost” Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. and Michael D. Kennedy Global Post http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/if-west-stands-putin-russian-economy-will-pay-heavy-cost (March 2, 2014) “After Invasion Analytical Thinking and Diplomacy around Ukraine” February 28, 2014 “Diplomatic and Analytical Failure in the face of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine” (February 26, 2014) “Expertise and Ukraine in Transformation” (2/26/14) Watson Institute for International Studies “Ask the Expert” https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 (February 23, 2014) “Ukraine’s Bully Must Be Removed” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140223-michael-d.-kennedy-ukraines-bully-must-be-removed.ece (February 22, 2014) “Move Beyond Concern to Consequence in Supporting Ukraine’s Revolution” (December 5, 2013 ) “A Nonviolent Revolution in Ukraine” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20131205-michael-d.-kennedy-a-nonviolent-revolution-in-ukraine.ece (June 21, 2013) “Occupy Movements Around the World: How Is Brazil’s Different?” Huffpost (Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Michael D. Kennedy) (February 3, 2012) “Poles Rallying for Our Digital Freedom” Providence Journal B6 (October 20, 2011) “An Ex-Premiere’s Plight and the Future of Ukrainian Freedom and Democracy” Providence Journal, B7 (October 19, 2004) “Are Poles Bushmen?” Chicago Tribune (December 11, 2001) “FBI Interviews Feel Hauntingly Familiar” Detroit Free Press Texts of Op Eds and Notes Accompanying Discussions Beyond the Streets in America’s Postmodern Civil War Riot Culture August 15, 2017 Michael D. Kennedy The drama of Trump Times threatens to consume us in fire and fury. The President found the right words when threatening North Korea, but he put them in the wrong context. With his penchant for violence made worse by illiteracy in his own native tongue, Trump moves the country to Hell in a handbasket while the apparently sane seek salvation in the wrong places We need recognize the times in which we live and articulate a vision that moves us beyond not just this present, but also that past which got us here. We are in a time of unprecedented danger while living in a state of denial. Morality appears to be simply self-evident while it is fact beyond too much public expression. I spell out the dangers below, and on what we need focus in order to escape the brimstone. The Dangers As a specialist in international affairs, I find America’s rudderless route in these turbulent times frightful. North Korea’s belligerence and our mixed messages are most evident, distressing both our allies and our great power rival in East Asia. Trump’s reckless statements destabilize even further an increasingly violent contest in Venezuela. The descent of Poland and Hungary into authoritarianisms aping Putin and Erdogan shake democratic anchors loose not only in Europe but also globally. We are told that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis might have a plan soon to address Afghanistan’s increasing insecurity, but it’s not here yet. And of course there’s more. But I am worried most about America, especially after this past weekend. I am sorry to say that I was not surprised by James Fields Jr.’s act of racist terrorism in Charlottesville. I was not even surprised by Trump’s delay in saying something so profound as “racism is evil” (how it takes 48 hours to come up with that insight astounds). Nor was I surprised by Heather Heyer’s commitment and martyrdom. Our nation is filled with profoundly decent people like Ms. Heyer whose outrage at Trump’s policies and practices surge protest. I was not even surprised when a few prominent members of the GOP spoke up immediately to denounce the evil that is white supremacy. Any Republican with half a brain has to know that it is not only America that Trump is dragging down, but also their own party. I am also not surprised that no Republicans, and I daresay few Democrats, are prepared to articulate openly what is the real danger facing us. We face civil war. To name this a civil war makes that confrontation more likely; to deny that there is one underway makes it more likely that the response to Trump and his fascist fans will be defined by those who envision their alternative with civility, and not justice, at its heart.  Postmodern Civil War Of course this is not like the civil war of 1861-65, that conflict which defined America’s struggle not only to end slavery but also to realize modernity. Should we then name this a postmodern civil war? It feels wrong to affix the adjective. Postmodern implies the digital and fluid. This civil war in the time of Trump is no virtual game. It has already claimed innocent lives before the Charlottesville attack -- Richard Collins III, Ricky John Best, and Taliesin Meche are among the best known and most recently killed before Ms. Heyer. Indisputably, they are victims of white supremacist terrorism. That terrorism is in plain sight. Those terrorists no longer hide their identities (although naming and shaming them could cost them employment). But their naked racism and verbal bile make anyone with an ounce of decency recoil. Listen to this horrid man declare Trump insufficiently racist for allowing his daughter to marry a Jew. Perhaps Trump would find blame in this side with this personal offense. Such violence can inspire direct action. It can move those now named antifa to meet that violence with their own because they do not see the state defending the vulnerable. With that action, they can evoke real civil warlike conditions, where violence of one side meets the violence of the other, just as we could see in the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, the time of their own heroic inspiration. Ideologies resonate across the centuries too. One side, with white self-delusion, believes America has been stained by the dilution of white power and privilege in America’s constitution, aided and abetted by a deep state filled with globalists like National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. The other side might also see that deep state at work, except acting on behalf of a racist capitalist system. If these ideologies define the terms of the contest, we should label it civil war plain and simple and prepare for the race war the fascists seek. The deeper civil war is not, however, defined by the same kind of ideological contest as that which moved the militant left to fight against fascists nearly a century ago. You can read today‘s civil war with century old glasses, but if you do, you’ll miss the fine print that defines the terms of the contest beyond the fight on the street. The principal battle defining this postmodern civil war is not undertaken with weapons that kill, but with means that define the terms of legitimate violence. For some, this is a desperate struggle to restore a law and order organized around white power and privilege grounded in institutionalized racism. This legitimate violence is defined by escalating already world leading incarceration rates while giving police even more freedom to use whatever means necessary to establish their order while neglecting the health, education and general well-being of those must vulnerable in our society. Memorials to Confederate war heroes are potent symbols of that order to be defended. For others, the very idea of legitimate violence is distant, for illegitimate violence defines their daily life not only with lives taken by murder and by prison, but with lives denied systemic pathways to dignity. Nonetheless the spirit of hope resides in the resistance to both systemic and gun-toting racism. Leaders like Pastor Traci Blackmon and Reverend Dr. William Barber inspire me. And many others. Given the horrible conditions facing far too many folks of color in this country, we ought recognize that most militias are not mostly theirs, the NRA is not mostly theirs, that domestic terrorism is not mostly theirs. Those modes and expressions of non-state means of violence are overwhelmingly white. And, as this video suggests, they are begging for a real fight. We should do all we can to deny them this realization of their self-fulfilling prophecy because this struggle against ignorant racists is not the only one we need wage. There are not two simple sides in this looming civil war. There is that silent public including a few people of color but also all those white folks who denounce white supremacists but who prefer to live in a system defined by white privilege. This group desperately wishes to return to the qualities of US democracy in pre-Trump politics and practice, where civility defined decency but could ignore the injustices that defined the terms of life beyond privileged neighborhoods. That world of the past no longer exists. For this public wishing to close their eyes to the choice that they must make, loyalties are fragile and made even more difficult when the choices are unclear. We need to work to make clear what those choices are. That can be very hard to do when the fascists are in your face. Even Paul Ryan must be squirming to find his spine when he can’t name the person (Trump) to whom his tweet declaring white supremacy repulsive is addressed. That would be nice if he could step up and be a big and brave boy and invoke the racist’s name. But that is not the deeper problem even while it captures our attention. We need recognize that this postmodern civil war is about defining the terms of a future that enables us not only to escape the dangers of this Trump moment but also the conditions that brought us here. A return to the past is not an option, although for many of those not on the front lines of this postmodern civil war it looks like utopia. We need a transformational solidarity that helps folks see the difference between our ideals and our reality, between the justice of laws and the justice of love, between the memory of pre-Trump decency and the reality of its institutional racism and its cascading class inequalities. It takes at least double consciousness to see beyond a past fake-normal towards a future less than perfect, but one to which we need commit in order to get through this shit. And we need that awareness now, for Trump and his fascist fans are ready to spring the trap. Transformational Solidarity Those who preside over the recurrent whiteness that enables resurgent white fury and fire work hard to moralize about the evils of fascism. If they also can point to antifa violence, they can denounce extremism generally. In so doing, they can make the evils of American institutionalized racism look normal and defame those who say Black Lives Matter. They can then declare Blue Lives Matter more. And that is just what Trump did in his scripted (better!) speech, by declaring Heather Heyer to be tragically killed, while stating Virginia state troopers Jay Cullen and Berke Bates to “exemplify the very best of America”. This is the postmodern language trap into which we are put. Of course we need lament the loss of every innocent life, but we cannot declare those citizens killed in the line of justice seeking to be somehow less heroic than those who die, perhaps by accident, in the line of official duty. At the same time, one can also see that Trump himself was trapped. Enough forces in this country recognize the dangers of fascism, and Trump was forced to declare the KKK and Nazis illegitimate on Monday. He delayed long enough to let those white supremacist Trump supporters know he doesn’t really mean it, and that he just had to say it to keep respectable. That’s the key. Respectable politics today is about keeping fascism rhetorically at a distance, while not pursuing the policies and practices that disable injustices. Here you need not be a white supremacist or fascist to align yourself with their hard edge. In fact, they can be quite useful; denouncing fascism might be the best defense of an institutionalized racism preserving white privilege. We need, therefore, to ask whether our politics of resistance keep attention fixed on the politics of the street or on the transformation of systemic injustice. By focusing so much on fascists, we can very easily see a utopian America reorganized around the common ground of Morning Joe decency and debate ala Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. With their condemnation, notably with Scarborough’s resignation from the Republican Party, their America could look like salvation. But that would mean losing the postmodern civil war, even when the Reverend Al Sharpton joins the show. When Donny Deutsch performed his outrage and demanded that everyone present on Tuesday declare Trump racist after his Charlottesville debacle, Sharpton held back. No, it’s too simple, Sharpton declared, to say he’s racist, for that is what then shapes the debate. Sharpton insisted we keep our focus on the policies, on the practices, that make racism more than an individual’s disposition, and rather a problem of the system. Donny was so gracious as to agree to disagree. Privilege rears as it was clear that Donny did not get the point. Whiteness thrives when we focus on individual moralities and word choices in order to distract us from systemic injustices. Were I the producer, I would have followed Sharpton with Sherrilynn Ifill whose authority resounds when it comes to policy and practice, notably around education, political participation, and criminal and economic justice. When asked in such programs to talk about Trump’s words, she continually returns to his policies and practices, calling on him to disband his “so-called election integrity commission… drop the Muslim ban.. reverse his tweet on the military transgender ban, the claim that LGBT individuals are not covered by civil rights laws…”and more. Words and symbols matter, but policies and practices are the things that count in the end. I’m no producer, but that’s a signal of the struggle we need to undertake in order to keep this postmodern civil war battle in transformational gear, and not allow this vehicle of change to go into civilly speaking right wing reverse. And that is what will happen if the politics of the streets and tweets define the terms of this postmodern civil war. We can’t allow Trump’s conduct to define the strategy for change. His antics are a great way to direct our attention to this extremist and racist right, which needs to be defeated. But we need end their threat while empowering those most threatened by their actions. And that means those who worry about more than offended sensibilities. We need keep Sharpton and Ifill in mind more than Joe and Mika when we think about the celebrity terms of the struggle so that justice becomes part of the American story in a way that it has never been. Violent confrontations of vile fascists on the street might feel righteous, but it feeds their frenzy, and makes it look like extremism is what we stand against. That’s wrong. We need stand for justice. In this postmodern civil war, we need keep systemic injustice in view, and not just the fascists at bay. (July 19, 2017) “Not Even the Art of the Fool: Trump’s the Tsar’s Dupe” Riot Material July 18, 2017 Famous for the Art of the Deal even before reality shows became a big thing, Donald J. Trump has demonstrated this week that he does not even know how to play the game in Washington DC. Legislation is not the same as a political campaign. “Repeal and Replace” Obamacare was a great slogan for mobilizing those who didn’t really understand the complexity of health care (as this president himself admitted) but who hated that last guy in the White House. But without an alternative to Obamacare, this is not even a good con, as the failure in the Senate illustrates. We might then rework Trump’s primary literary achievement into something more appropriate. Perhaps the Art of the Fool? Trump is no fool, however. Fools can say the critical thing because their jest can protect them. Indeed, there is a tradition in Russia of “holy foolishness” that burrows deep in the Byzantine tradition where not only mockery can carry on but spiritual truths can be revealed. I am no expert in this scholarship, but it does not seem like we can find such insight in Trump’s behavior. Trump’s political foolishness is not meant to clarify a problem; it is designed to mark enemies so that his supporters can enjoy a righteousness regardless of evidence to the contrary. When he declares that we should “let Obamacare fail”, he appeals to that base. That is cruel disingenuity, however. With his levers of state, he can make it fail. And he will, in mean disregard for those who are his base. This is, as Senator Corey Booker calls it, cynical and sinister. Fool is not the right word to describe Trump. I have an affection for fools whose outrageousness illuminates, not for those whose ridiculousness hurts everyday folks. I searched for synonyms. Imbecile. Idiot. Moron. Ass. Blockhead. Dolt. Cretin. Dullard. Clod. I had to go archaic to find the right ring: “a person who is duped”. We normally laugh at such people, but Trump is no laughingstock. Nobody chuckles anymore at his behavior, except perhaps Putin. The only conclusion I can draw is that Trump is Putin’s dupe. We might even call him the Tsar’s Dupe. The Tsar’s Dupe Of course Putin is no tsar, but some experts like to remind us that Putin’s Ubermensch behavior is rooted in a Russian tradition of autocracy. Geoffrey Hosking argues that Putin has embraced a tsarist view of geopolitics, in which “all great nations achieve security through the creation and assertion of raw power” where “economy, culture, the media, science and technology are all regarded as belonging to the state, to be deployed in this rivalry between great powers.” And when this is combined with a certain traditionalism and hostility for the multiculturalist left, we can see why some on the American right, especially its alt-right, admire what Putin has done. This grates on traditional conservatism, of course, and on the professional US intelligence community which has defined its mission largely in opposition to Russian state power. Of course intelligence is not Trump’s friend, in both senses of the term. Now, however, we can focus on how Trump continues to resist the idea that the Russian authorities deliberately attacked our 2016 presidential election. America’s intelligence agencies came to that conclusion, but Trump foolishly resists the notion, implying wrongfully that there is dissent among intelligence professionals and that the Kremlin was only one consequential hacker among others. Those American agencies’ intelligence only grows with each day, however. Now we have a story of collusion to complement the coincidences. Donald Trump, Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone, a friend and business associate (who is himself derided by Trump defenders) saying that he could arrange a meeting that would provide Jr. with “some official documents and information (from the Russian government) that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father”. That meeting occurs and includes Jr’s brother-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, a Russian small time lawyer named Nataliya Veselnitskaya, and Rinat Akhmetshin, whom the New York Times dubbed, “the Master of the Dark Arts” along with a Veslnitskaya’s translator. Drip Drip Drip. Days later we learn that there was still another in the meeting, one Ike Kaveladze, someone expert in how Russians move money around the world. Jr. completely bungled laying out this story by failing, among other things, to mention Akhmetshin and Kaveladze. Jared failed to report this meeting in his search for security clearances. There is substantial discussion now as to whether any laws were broken by these Trump family members plus Manafort. Regardless of legalities, this is chaos. And this makes Putin smile for the father is not the only dupe in the house. Trump may be Captain Chaos, but his eldest son may wish to be his Boy Wonder, his Kid Chaos. (I do love how we can treat a 39 year old man like a little boy making silly mistakes. Aleksandra Petri is right to call out this grotesquerie of privilege.) For those trained in intelligence, this tale is a familiar plot: “It bears all the hallmarks of a professionally planned, carefully orchestrated intelligence soft pitch designed to gauge receptivity, while leaving room for plausible deniability in case the approach is rejected”. But the dupe is less apparent in their taking the meeting than in their failure to report it to the FBI. By concealing this meeting, the Russians know that a) Trump’s team is willing to exchange favors; and b) these Americans are subject to blackmail. Americans now can add a new word to their Russian vocabulary: Kompromat. It doesn’t take a spymaster to figure out what Russians would want from Trump should he win the election, and they may get one part of that soon: two mansions Obama took away from them following Intelligence confirmation of their attack on our 2016 election. Of course there is more on which Trump could deliver: an end to the Magnitsky Act, more cooperation on Russian terms in Syria and Ukraine, and ultimately, NATO’s weakening. Were Trump a better politician, I would worry that whatever is behind this Kompromat would have led already to sellouts of allies and extorted gifts to adversaries. Thanks to Trump’s incompetence, the US is still holding up some end of the Western democratic bargain. We think. Deepening Legitimation Crisis I have previously discussed first the looming and more recently the impending legitimation crisis facing Trump. His attacks on immigrants and Muslims were not sources of that crisis; rather, they helped to buttress his authority among those publics that matter in his mind, and in his polls. (And he moves ahead regardless of institutional legitimacy. We learn just today that the Muslim Ban is proceeding through bureaucratic maneuver even while the judicial process was supposed to halt its worst aspects.) Trump also helps to secure his position by generating conflict itself. As he infuriates a growing portion of the people living in this country into non-violent opposition and resistance, that protest can itself helps to ensure his rule. Indeed, the clarity with which the National Rifle Association now mobilizes against the left, against people of color, is truly incendiary. That is his base. Two contradictions remain his Achilles Heels, however. Health care leads. The failure of Mitch McConnell to pass a Senate replacement for Obamacare now leads Trump to say he is “deeply disappointed”. He should not be, for to enact a reform that would take away insurance from his base of support would have moved legitimation crisis into top gear. Trump stood back and refused to play the part of President, allowing McConnell to take the lead. If I thought Trump more prescient, I would have imagined that he put McConnell into that role so that a) McConnell could be the fall guy; and b) Trump could say that the failure of health care that he produces by withdrawing subsidies from the insurance industry is the fault of Democrats. Fortunately there are responsible Republicans out there who will not sacrifice the health of their constituents to appease the megalomania of their president. They recognize that they do need to undertake some kind of bipartisan effort to save Obamacare from destruction in order to save their constituents from real mortal crisis, and the insurance industry from market failure. Those governors joined three female GOP senators to derail Trumpcare and now offer some hope that somehow healthcare might be saved. And with this defeat of Trumpcare, Trump, himself, might have just extended his lease on presidential life. Of course this happens despite his leadership, or lack thereof. However, this failure only extends the chaos that is known as Trump’s presidential leadership. I can’t trace this particular moment of chaos back to Putin, however. But that is not how Putin’s hybrid warfare works. Rather, it is designed to make democracy in practice look foolish, incompetent. It is designed to make the Ubermensch look necessary, inevitable, irreplaceable. It is a kind of escapism that puts faith in the putative solution rather than in the legislative work that can address of the problem that is health care, that is the environmental crisis, that is American infrastructure, and so on and so on. And here is where Trump becomes dupe. Trump is too incompetent to be a real Ubermensch. He is no Putin. He is not even an Orban. He is not consistent enough. He does not understand goverance well enough, especially when it goes beyond making enemies. He is not sufficiently in control of his emotions. His ego is too fragile; or rather it is a black hole that needs to be constantly stroked in order to avoid implosion. He is a disaster for democracy. Is that what Putin wants? It’s hard to say. There is considerable debate about how good a strategist, rather than tactician, Putin is. No doubt he excels at the latter, and reflects his beloved sport well. Judo responds best to others’ mistakes. Judomasters know how to invite a foolish move that enables the conclusive throw. Some are doubting his martial arts acumen lately, however, but we should not fail to recognize at what Putin is outstanding. He is the Master of Disruption. We saw that when he invaded Ukraine. And we see it now in his support for Trump’s election, and his embrace of his farcical imitation. Putin has thrown America to the ground, and now we now struggle to figure out how to get out of his arm bar. While we need a bipartisan approach to fixing Obamacare, it won’t break Putin’s grip. The only way we can escape that submission is to dig ever deeper into this real collusion that took place between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The more Trump resists this probe, the more resilient the American people must be to get to the bottom of this scandal and clean house. The Trump family is not more important than the American nation, despite how Trump behaves. This corruption at the core of our executive branch cannot define the integrity of our nation. When it does, we are done. Is Trump the tsar’s dupe or is he our president? I’m not sure that we can break that conjunction until we know everything about Trump’s relationship to Russia. And that begins with making public everything about his financial empire. Follow the money to find how the tsar’s dupe was made. In the process, we might figure out how we can unmake the tsar’s dupe. Until then, watch how well Trump deflects responsibility by finding the incompetent and enemies everywhere but in Putin’s realm. But if Putin is Trump’s best friend, our president may as well begin counting the days until Kompromat does him in. (June 15, 2017) “On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/rule-law-rule-loyalty-political-epistemics-trump-communism/#more-4120 On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism Michael D. Kennedy June 15, 2017 Socialism was to be a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, a consciousness-driven model of social transformation but without the processes that would allow it to validate its understandings against how the world really worked. Focused more on mobilization against an enemy than understanding itself and its society, the Communist Party and its state were both constituted through mechanisms they also made. The way in which they were made also prevented authorities from recognizing the real problems they faced. I wrote that paragraph to describe Andreas Glaeser’s book on the political epistemics organizing the East German society communists ruled. One can understand Trump Rule better in light of that work, as well as of others illuminating communist rule. It’s not only the pervasiveness of the lie. Do we need to trust authorities to act on our behalf and require no evidence that they do? Do we need to emulate the sycophancy of the leaders’ lieutenants in order to find our place in the new order? If we challenge authority, do we risk becoming an enemy? In this kind of order, it’s not the rule of law but the rule of loyalty that determines trustworthiness and truthfulness. I have been waiting for President Trump to depart from this approximation of high communism, but in recent weeks, he only moves closer to this system-destructive disposition. We can see that march in two steps, with one side-step giving me hope for system-recovery. Loyalty and Law Under communist rule, the Communist Party was the most sacred object in the system because it embodied a substantive rationality rooted in the assignation of virtually divine status to the Party. I explained this position in 1991 (p. 203): The sacred status of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union derived from its position as the incarnation of the hierophantic October Revolution. Eastern European parties gained their initially sacred status by conference from that incarnation. This sacred status of the party means that loyalty to it becomes a higher principle than any other moral guidelines…The Komsomol slogan of ‘the party is our reason, honor and conscience’ means that individual conscience is completely estranged and embodied in the “mythical will of the organization” In 1968, Poland’s Communist Party even formally rejected the challenge made by Leszek Kolakowski and others that individual conscience should take precedence over party dictates for deciding morality. Former FBI director James Comey’s public testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee last week moved the question of loyalty in America front and center. He claimed that Trump demanded personal loyalty to him, something Trump had done many times before in private business. But in the US, commissioned officers in the uniformed services and federal officials swear to defend to the Constitution, not pledge personal fealty to one’s supreme leader. It is easy to see how President Trump could presume that loyalty to him and to the Constitution as one in the same, especially if he presumes to embody the nation itself in ways that the Party embodied socialism. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others invoke a custom that declares their conversations with the president beyond the bounds of Constitutional oversight (made without any invocation of presidential privilege), this signals, again, rule by a unitary figure rather than rule by a Constitution that recognizes three equal branches of government. The sycophantic display by Trump’s Cabinet officials on June 12, thanking him for the opportunity to work with him, is another moment evidencing the importance of loyalty in Trump’s rule. Indeed, the differences among these performances make the point even clearer. Mike Pence said, "It is just the greatest privilege of my life is to serve as the -- as vice president to the President who's keeping his word to the American people and assembling a team that's bringing real change, real prosperity, real strength back to our nation." By contrast, Jim Mattis said, "Mr. President, it's an honor to represent the men and women of the Department of Defense. And we are grateful for the sacrifices our people are making in order to strengthen our military so our diplomats always negotiate from a position of strength. Thank you." In a culture where loyalty is demanded, whether to the Party or to the Boss, critique is hard to come by, and sometimes hard to read. But experience in reading communist rule and resistance to it helps us appreciate what Secretary of Defense Mattis was doing in that moment. Sidestep to opposition and critique. Opposition and Critique Of course there was no critique apparent in the Attorney General’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 13. Jeff Sessions’ testimony was filled “with more emotion than specifics as he showcased his loyalty to Mr. Trump”. Senator Tom Cotton extended that effect by ridiculing the investigation into Russian collusion by asking the AG if he liked Jason Bourne and James Bond. That good humor, and Sessions’ notable emotional release in the exchange with this familiar, signaled the reproduction of a certain kind of political alliance. Their affinity was made even more clear in contrast to Senator Kamala Harris’s interrogation. I am far from alone in marking the racial and gender dynamics of Trump’s mode of legitimation, but even if an observer of the Sessions hearing had never considered it before, the exchange between Harris and Sessions clarified. Her prosecutorial style was augmented by throwing shade in ways that make those claiming to be color blind nervous. It wasn’t just her rapid fire delivery and attempt to forestall his filibuster that unsettled him; it was her obvious challenge to the decorum of a Senate defined by white men of privilege. It doesn’t take experience analyzing communist rule and resistance to it to see that. And while Senator Harris won many fans in that exchange, I fear that conflict does not undermine Trump, or Sessions. Racist and misogynist schema work to assign her as rude, and deserving of white patriarchal rebuke. It’s just not becoming to see a gentleman get all flustered. Part of Trump’s legitimation depends on that racialized and gendered conflict. Kimberle Crenshaw’s recent piece dispels any lingering illusions that white supremacy is not securely anchored in the distribution of American power and privilege, and that Trump doesn’t thrive because of it. It’s worth debating whether the different modes of reproduction for white supremacy and patriarchy matter. At least I see a difference between those who feel like they must legitimate their power and privilege through the law, and those who trample it with their power and privilege. And thus I look for those who might challenge Trump’s abuse of presidential authority, especially when they are close to that authority. I can see some of that critical edge in Secretary of Defense Mattis’s words and reference because it resembles some of the resistance I have explored in communist ruled societies. Of course that resistance was patently evident on February 19, 2017, when Jim Mattis declared, in distinction to Trump’s implication that they are the enemy of America, that he has no issues with the press. It might even be apparent when, after being asked about the London terror attack, the General declared on the Singapore tarmac before his June 5 departure, “I like to learn about something before I talk”. In a fashion reminiscent of those among and beyond communist authorities trying to find independent voice, one has to read between the lines to find critique. I found that clearly evident in Mattis’s Memorial Day remarks. On May 29 at Arlington National Cemetery, Mattis quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to say of soldiers, "having known great things they are content with silence". Intellectual that Mattis is, I wondered whether he chose that line to make a particularly pointed reference to President Trump, his succeeding speechmaker, who declares everything he does to be the greatest. But there is more. When you read the broader speech by Holmes that Mattis references, one of the most eloquent of American jurists celebrates honor (not all of which in today’s cultural sensibilities is virtuous). In that account, there is no obvious place for a man with Trump’s values and practices.  Here, in the most typical of intellectual dissident fashion, Mattis makes his critique of Trump loud and clear for those who can read, and write, more than a tweet. At least I heard that, and I trust I am not alone, even if Trump can’t see it. But it is important for those in the opposition to be able to see it. We need to recognize that not all those around Trump accept Trump’s departures from the best of America. We need to escape the trap Trump and his like-minded set for those who can see the world only in terms of friends and enemies. In that contest, Trump reproduces the conditions of his own rule. Reason and Conspiracy Trump’s inability to acknowledge mistakes suggest an even greater resemblance to the Communist Party with its insistence on infallibility; in both, the source of all problems rests in the work of enemies. Even on the day after the Alexandria attack on Republicans practicing baseball, and after Trump himself declared the importance of unity in America, he damn-tweeted those investigating the possibility of an obstruction of justice: “You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA”. With the hashtag referencing Make America Great Again, it is clear that democratic difference pursued through the rule of law has no place in Trump’s Great America, especially when he is the object of that legal question. By turning legal inquiries into struggles with enemies, Trump and his like-minded friends are turning America evermore into a condition that resembles Glaeser’s East Germany. East Germany fell because the secret police and their communist authorities understood their system in ways that became ever more disconnected from reality. The only kinds of threats they could recognize came from the capitalist class enemy without, and those that enemy organized within the German Democratic Republic. Witch Hunt = Capitalist Sedition. Those GDR authorities could only see problems through the friend/enemy lens, and could not understand the real social origins of civil society and its various commitments to environmentalism, peace, and democracy. They could only see contest as the result of conspiracy with an enemy. Sound familiar? If I were Trump’s advisor, if I were Steve Bannon, I would recommend they read Glaeser and ask whether they wish to repeat what happened in the GDR. It may be that finding enemies elsewhere, and stoking conflict by embedding real tragedies into self-serving narratives, will appeal to their like-minded, and help to generate the conflict that preserves their rule. But that disposition destroys their ability to recognize what is really going on, while destroying the system over which the Electoral College gave them authority. Of course I could be missing the real Real. Many of Trump’s supporters, and perhaps the President himself, views the Deep State as the real Real. With that lens, appeals to constitutionalism, professionalism, and the rule of law in the characterization of the Special Counsel’s work look to be a sham, and an attack on the greatest ever personification of the American people. For a huge number of Trump supporters, and perhaps for Trump himself, the ultimate enemy is this Deep State manifest in its professional intelligence community mobilized to query whether he has obstructed justice. To the Trumpian sensibility, the law has become a weapon of war wielded by their enemies. This, then, is the deep problem: when the real goes beyond the empirically demonstrable, as capitalist sedition did in communist East Germany, no amount of reason and evidentiary argument can supplant the question of who is with us, and who is against us. It’s not just that the rule of loyalty replaces the rule of law. It replaces the rule of reason with the rule of conspiracy. Institutional Resilience or Ignorance of History I am struck by those like Norm Eisen who believe that US institutions are sufficiently resilient to withstand Trump’s constitutional ignorance and congenital misrepresentations. Most students of communist rule also thought that system resistant to transformation. I was more focused on the conditions of transformation than most, and after the fact, I tried to explain the peacefulness and rapidity of its transformation. But I was continually surprised over the course of 1989-91, and shocked and disgusted by the succeeding destruction of the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. Of course communist rule was much more fragile than the system of power and privilege organizing the USA. With our decentralization of power relations and our political and legal systems for the resolution of difference in relatively peaceful fashion, we should not anticipate anything like the radical transformation communist rule experienced. However, we are headed in the very direction that made the Soviet Union and its near abroad collapse. When truth becomes a weapon and when loyalty to a person or a group trumps the law, we lose the capacity to adjudicate differences and to believe that the system is potentially redeemable. Loyalty to a remedial Constitution above any individual or group enables justice to be a future toward which we peaceably strive. Kamala Harris is a hero for now, and she will be, or others like her will be, our president in the future if hope can remain part of our constitution. Outright opposition is critical. But we also need those apparently with Trump to find their conscience to step up to defend the Constitution. Of course if Mattis and others sidestep Trump’s loyalty dance, they will become his enemy. But it’s only if we can combine their maneuver with the resistance Harris exemplifies that we might transcend Trump’s political epistemics and preserve the Constitution that enables our peaceable progress as a nation. (May 27, 2017) “Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/78143-2/ Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America Michael D. Kennedy May 27, 2017 Norm Eisen just delivered one of the best talks I have ever heard in the Watson Institute. By following his work, I knew that he was smart, ethical, and courageous, but I did not expect that he would have done what the best presentations do: fuse apparent contradictions into transcendent vision. Eisen did just that in presenting a view of our particular nation in the most universal of terms, even while celebrating the even more particular Brown University to which we are both tied. Eisen recalled his time at Brown, his work in the infirmary where he could study more than by laboring in the library. He evoked the spirit of Brown’s commitment to liberal values, in the sense of scholarly reason and deep reflection while acknowledging that liberalism also having something of a political accent. But I would defy anyone to brand this talk as necessarily liberal in the partisan sense, especially given his career and more recent commitments. With his work as litigator, he has represented many different interests. It is clear, of course, that he does live in the Democratic Party’s side of the nation, having served as the “ethics tsar” for the Obama White House, and then as Ambassador to the Czech Republic during that presidency. But given his partnership with Richard Painter, the ethics tsar for George W. Bush, even that partisan identification fades before a vision of America defined by bipartisanship on the most vital issues before the nation. Painter and Eisen defined that vital issue most recently by asking whether our president is a criminal with his obstruction of justice. Of course this also builds on their prior work in launching a suit against Trump for violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has not ruled as to whether the US President enjoys sovereign immunity, Eisen today noted that the brief for denying that immunity is already complete with the work of Leon Jaworski in US v Nixon. As such, Eisen finds that litigation, rather than impeachment, is a more likely course to save US from the cancer Trump’s leadership brings to the notion of public service and its consequent disdain for the Constitution. The preceding reflection could have been moved by following Norm Eisen’s work and learning trajectory, but what floored me was his ability to move beyond the litigator’s spirit to one animated by love, something I don’t usually associate with lawyers’ public ways. One reason this talk was so profound was that it was not only about the fate of the nation, but very much a personal story about Eisen and his family. He came to Brown from a humble southern Californian lifestyle with profound trauma in background; his mother lost family exiled to Auschwitz. A Holocaust survivor herself, she was also a student of history, of the world, and she worried to her son that the end of the Cold War could be dangerous: without an external enemy, we are likely to fight with each other, within our nations. The vitriol with which we see partisan conflict in the USA today was evidence, Eisen mused, that his mother, now gone from this world four years, was right. His mother also worried about the dangers a reunited Germany would pose to the world, but Eisen’s sense of irony was on full display. In today’s world, it is the leader of that united Germany, Angela Merkel, who stands tallest in support of the liberal values represented by Brown University and the USA at their best. This is testament to, he said, the power of love in the world. In the wake of a defeated Nazi Germany, the USA offered a way to rebuild Germany with the Marshall Plan, to create, in that process, the vital democracy we now see standing up to authoritarians, and for human rights, around the world. Although I am a fan of love-driven politics, I have frankly never thought of US foreign policy in those terms. But given the trajectory of America First, I need revisit that question, and perhaps with the optimism and hope Eisen brings. How could he not be an optimist? Eisen asked that very question considering that he became Ambassador to the very lands from which his mother was deported to Auschwitz. He lived in Prague’s US Embassy mansion, built by a Jewish magnate, but during WWII occupied by the very Nazi authorities responsible for the death of his mother’s family. As Ambassador, he lived in that house, remaking it with articles of his own Jewish faith. Evil certainly exists in this world, but we can triumph over it. His religiosity in such optimism is apparent, but his belief appears to center less on God’s design than on his reverence for the Constitution and the brilliance of its designers. I am myself an optimist, but nothing like him. I am worried, frankly, that we in the USA are on the road to Hell, but Eisen has greater faith than I in the power of our Constitution, and in its consequent checks and balances. He seems certain that our Courts, and our Fourth Estate, will prevent the crash of democracy so many more skeptical commentators anticipate. He could even point to evidence this morning of that very fact: the White House has backed down from its own attack on transparency in ethics rules. Perhaps more controversially, he also considers those leaking accounts of Trump’s possibly criminal behavior to be the descendants of Daniel Ellsberg in spirit if not in identical practice. In our US tradition, civil disobedience should be followed by willingness to accept the punishment for ethical, even if illegal, behavior; it is the compromise enabling the rule of law to persevere. But today, the costs of that violation are too great to enable leakers to step forward. That, to my mind as well, is a system problem that needs address more than a problem of individual wrongdoing. Eisen certainly, with his celebration of the brilliance of our Constitution and the courage of those who would defend it and the system of checks and balances it sanctifies, could conclude with hope. But his response to one question from the floor was ominous. For those who are distressed by the rule of Trump and its assault on the rule of law and constitutionality, they might consider an even greater nightmare question: what type of governance will follow the times of Trump? I have greater hope for that future now having seen not only the results of Norm Eisen’s work, but his living character. Indeed, he himself represents the greatest fusion of spirits we need: to be able to look danger squarely in the eye with the spirit that also might find its transcendence. That may be why, in the end, that he does not say he is anti-Trump. He is “pro-constitution”. After today, so am I. (May 26, 2017) “Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump” (an introduction to a series of student papers on the sociological imagination after Trump) RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/sociology-trump1/ Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy and Maria Ortega Does the rise of Trump signal the beginning of a new era for America, for the world? Will he, and his look-alikes across the world, restructure power relations and the distribution of privilege to extend freedom? Or does this mode of governance diminish justice, democracy, peace, and environmental security? Of course in a time so politically polarized as this, we know answers to such questions are likely to depend on one’s standpoint. Consequently, many doubt that one could discuss such issues in a way that goes beyond conventional partisan divisions, and into deeper, more responsible, engaged scholarship. Sociology must. As scholars of sociology, we research how power works and how change happens. We are critical sociologists, as we find it impossible in these times to explain change without engaging the values that move our questions. We both engage audiences beyond fellow academics, notably policy makers and publics. In the end, we are also teachers; our students are our most immediate public. When Kennedy planned to teach introductory sociology for the first time in some 20 years, he anticipated a course dedicated to explaining how culture and power set the parameters for social change, from reform to revolution, from democratization to war. Even after Brexit, when Ortega and he began planning the course in the early fall of 2016, we did not expect that Trump would have been elected. But his election changed everything. Of course such an absolute declaration depends on where you stand. For many people of color, especially those most vulnerable to police and everyday violence, or whose lands are occupied, or for being undocumented or suspected of terrorist ties, change may not be so dramatic as that which most of those first time protesters in the Women’s March of January 21, 2017 felt. However, because so many people in the USA mark the Time of Trump as a moment of potentially radical change, we may be facing revolutionary times. At the very least, it invites us all to rethink our sociological imaginations with new parameters in mind. And that moved our introductory sociology course to 83 Brown University students over the spring term of 2017. About midway through the course, with sociological imaginations on fire, we invited these students to reflect on how sociology helps us engage the Time of Trump. With the series of papers that follow, we share some of the excellent papers we read following that assignment. As you will appreciate, questions are many, standpoints various, methods multiple, and styles heterogeneous. They are all, however, expressions of professional, critical, policy and public sociology, exemplifying what it means to be an engaged scholar in these times. Brown University is known for its liberal reputation among universities, but not always for its connection to its most proximate publics in Rhode Island. With changes in the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, notably with its embrace of Public Policy, and the Swearer Center for Public Service, notably with the extension of its engaged scholars program, the university might find greater common cause with surrounding communities. Indeed, we hope that the papers following can be another signal of that trajectory, in what our discipline calls public sociology. For the two of us, however, this is also inspiring sociology. Learning from our students renews our commitment to refining the sociological imagination for our times, for our future. (May 25, 2017) “The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” http://www.rifuture.org/the-impending-legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America Michael D. Kennedy May 23, 2017 Three months ago I marked the looming legitimation crisis in Trump’s America. I subsequently argued that not all contradictions accompanying President Trump’s governance magnified that crisis. In the succeeding months, those conflicts that reinforced cultural authority among Trump’s base have not changed much, if at all. However, his Russian Achilles Heel has grown much more vulnerable while the health care crisis functions to make him even more unstable. I have been able to extend these points around Trump’s legitimation crisis on various television programs but I consolidate those observations here. In what follows, I elaborate some of my original argument from the second article in this series, one that was animated by my crude sketch. An anonymous artist has transformed that image to accompany this third essay on the legitimation crisis in Trump’s America. But before I elaborate, I clarify the meaning of “legitimation crisis”. Recognizing Legitimation Crisis I previously simplified legitimation crisis as the lack of sufficient cultural authority to support legal authority. Its scholarly elaboration is much more substantial. In its classic formulation, legitimacy refers to an acknowledged right to govern, but that right has different kinds of cultural authority behind it. More than a century ago, sociologist Max Weber argued that such authority could have different sources -- tradition, a rational/legal system, or charisma. Legitimation crisis as such is associated with a 1973 book by Jürgen Habermas, but Nancy Fraser recently has refined his argument. She notes both the abiding, and transforming, legitimation crisis of advanced capitalism, in a condition where “public opinion turns against a dysfunctional system that fails to deliver” (p. 165). She also draws on Antonio Gramsci to elaborate how hegemonies and counter-hegemonies work in that contest: What grounds hegemonic worldviews—and their counter-hegemonic rivals—are suppositions about the subject positions and capacities for agency available to social actors, the proper responsibilities and actual capabilities of public powers, the structure and operation of the reigning social order, the principles and frames of justice by which that order is to be evaluated, and the historical availability of desirable and feasible alternatives. (p. 172). This is a good guide. For this immediate context, and perhaps for other Trump-type societies, the most immediate issue before us is the distribution of justice frames. By articulating that distribution with hegemony as such, we not only can recognize conflicts animating Trump-type rule but also parse which contests reproduce cultural authority and which ones transform it. It’s not enough to have an increasingly alienated and mobilized opposition to authority for a legitimation crisis to develop. After all, legitimacy does not depend on everyone, or even a majority, accepting cultural authority; it only depends on assuring that “other authorities confirm decisions of a given authority” (p. 171). A legitimation crisis emerges when those with a sufficient array of resources withdraw their support and challenge an incumbent. That rearticulation of power relations comes from two possible sources: a) where the opposition grows sufficiently strong as to disrupt the reproduction of power and privilege; or b) when erstwhile allies of an authority recognize the danger that authority poses to their own position and withdraw their support. Simply, conflict does not, in and of itself, risk cultural authority. Indeed, others have observed that Trump thrives on crisis and conflict; some conflicts nourish his position and others threaten it. The first five points below reflect the former, the latter two, with different social dynamics, are likely to drive legitimation crisis through to Trump’s impeachment or resignation. Conflicts Reproducing Trump’s Cultural Authority Trump’s economic nationalism is increasingly anchored to militarism... On his first trip abroad, Trump sings the glories of arming Saudi Arabia and assuring them a “good deal” in return for their investment in the US economy and support in defeating ISIS. Trump thus fuses a muscular military strategy with claims to American job creation, replicating that Cold War practice in which US expenditures on oil are returned to the US economy through sales of US weapon systems to client states. While those who prioritize human rights might not find comfort in Trump’s embrace of autocrats elsewhere, they are also unlikely to be among those who support Trump in the first place. Even the beating of peaceful protesters on US soil by the Turkish Prime Minister’s bodyguards might be seen as a small price to pay to gain support from other nations’ strong men to fix security. We can find ways to differentiate Trump’s approach to the Middle East from Obama’s, but there is also significant continuity for US foreign policy toward the region. Nevertheless, I do fear that in that autocratic company, US authorities could acquire an even greater taste for life without protest. Commerce Secretary Ross already celebrated it. But this retreat from human rights and democracy does not, in and of itself, undermine Trump’s cultural authority, and for now, only reinforces his image of being a tough guy making tough choices. His base loves it. Trump came back with a revised Muslim Ban…. That is no Muslim ban, but a travel ban to enhance national security, offer his proponents. And, they may say, to declare Trump hostile to Islam is obviously not the case given his trip to Saudi Arabia. But Mustafa Akyo and Wajahat Ali clarify the disdain evident in his visit. Yes he bowed before the king to receive Saudi honors and, unlike Steve Bannon, managed a smile during a sword dance, but all this, they argue, was much more testament to the fight against terrorism and embrace of autocracy in the process. It was certainly no expression of respect for Islam or its believers as such. Nonetheless, and despite his gaffe, President Trump may have given enough material to those who envision a fundamental conflict between Judeo-Christianity and Islam to deny that Trump’s policies are prejudicial against Islam. In this context, you just need to be sure to give restrictive nationalists (those who prioritize “true Americans”) enough to deny creedal nationalists (those who prioritize the Constitution) the edge in popular contests over defining the nation. But that may not be enough in the legal arena. The arguments before the 9th circuit court were revealing. Judge Michael Hawkins asked Trump’s advocate whether President Trump ever declared that he was wrong, as a presidential candidate, in calling for a Muslim Ban. Without adequate reply, we are simply invited to trust that the President knows what needs be done for national security. That, as the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II reminds us, is no great assurance. No measure of Saudi sword play will suffice to draw proponents of the First Amendment close to Trump. But then they, and Muslim Americans, are not his base. Being hostile to Islam can increase Trump’s appeal among those who already support him for the view that Islam is not like other religions. “Can a Muslim be American; and an American, Muslim?” That question divides America, but does not undermine Trump’s cultural authority. Too many believe the answer is no. Deportation of the undocumented intensifies…. The same contest apparent 3 months ago around the undocumented remains the same, but with accumulating fear, ill health, and insecurity among those at risk of deportation, and for those tied to them. While the number of stories of communities devastated floods the public sphere, including accounts even of previous Trump supporters who thought their families immune from such deportations, this too does not change the calculus surrounding Trump’s cultural authority. It does, however, introduce new rifts into the racial formations of America, where opportunities in political life for people of color to distance themselves from the more vulnerable and dispossessed grow. Thus, rather than focus on ethnicity per se to understand the conflicts and contradictions of Trump rule around documentation, one needs to look at constellations of local power, and how sanctuary rules find sustenance in broader networks of affinity. Regardless of solidarity’s spread, stories of suffering among the undocumented are unlikely to move those with substantial resources already aligned with Trump to withdraw their support from him. The contest over truth generates heat … The elevation of “fake news” has become an ever more important element in the repertoire of those who would defend Trump at all costs. Recently, some of his advocates even have proposed flooding mainstream media with phony leaks as part of the information wars with which news is viewed in Trump’s America. This was even evident in the March for Science. This protest seemed to have been conceived as a politically neutral project designed to elevate evidentiary reason over partisan position in figuring things science might. This enabled Brown University, among other associations obliged to avoid partisan association, to celebrate the mobilization’s embrace of truth and ridicule of concepts like “alternative facts”. However, Trump’s supporters used the political inflections of the protest to diminish its larger point by claiming science to be with them and even offering that those with less science in their backgrounds use a science checklist to challenge politically biased PhDs. Here too conflict seems unlikely to pose much challenge to Trump’s cultural authority given the ways in which intellectual authority and liberal disposition correlate. This is one reason why I’ve become increasingly interested in learning from leading conservative intellectuals whose commitment to reasoned principles animate their accounts of Trump’s governance. But here we need recognize that many of Trump’s supporters are not following principles other than hating on those who oppose Trump. Appeals to truth, reason and evidence in a system where information is weaponized are unlikely to challenge Trump’s cultural authority. The arrogance of Whiteness consolidates his base. The drawing accompanying this essay references the moment when Trump asked April Ryan, an African American White House reporter to convene her friends in the Congressional Black Caucus. That othering is something familiar to those who recognize how resurgent Whiteness draws on the repertoires of recurrent Whiteness. I failed in my past essay to mark how this racialization relies on the criminal justice system itself to magnify racial division. This is especially apparent in the opposition between Blue and Black Lives. Trump has clearly supported the Blue Lives Matter movement. In turn, Black Lives Matter has transformed its practice to extend solidarity, but not in a direction that transforms the vision of those oblivious to the veil. While white ally movements may grow, the challenge of reproducing white privilege even within them daunts. Transforming the power of whiteness is requisite to a just America, but Trump’s America relies on its insurgence, and draws power from racial confrontations, regardless of the justice of their cause. Trump’s cultural authority is reinforced by conflict. It depends on economic nationalism fueled by militarism, disdain for creedal nationalism’s embrace of the First Amendment and the courts, hostility toward the undocumented, contempt for intellectuality, and a new racial formation for America led by white resentment. While struggles will, and need, continue in these domains to protect those marginalized, exploited, vulnerable, and closer to the truth of things, these conflicts will not move legitimation crisis. Two other things will. Transformative Conflicts Generating Legitimation Crisis The implication of Russia in the US election and Trump’s cover up moves consequential conflict among elites. Three months ago, I took Mike Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor as the harbinger of the legitimation crisis that now grows every day. The crisis cascade became a waterfall with the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the man leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections and of possible collusion between Russian authorities and Trump’s election team. With the appointment of a special prosecutor with impeccable authority across the power elite, the distribution of incriminating memos by those whom Trump attempted to intimidate, and testimonies by a number of officials about Trump’s quest to obstruct justice in pursuit if not in law, and all this just within the last week, Trump’s cultural authority is not only at risk. With increasing regularity, journalists and pundits, including John Dean himself, liken Trump’s situation to Richard Nixon’s shortly before his own resignation rather than face certain impeachment. The best signal of this precariousness is the repeated warnings to all those in Trump’s employ to get a lawyer to assure their own insulation from the dumpster fire engulfing the White House. Many will point to a key difference with the time of Nixon’s downfall. In contrast to Nixon, Trump’s party controls both houses of Congress, and thus the likelihood of impeachment is slender. But as legal and political challenges mount, the number of Republicans pushing Trump to resign will grow. After all, many of the most prominent Republican Senators, just last year, spoke of the disaster Trump would be as President. They need only recall that oratory and said that they gave him a chance. That becomes even more likely with the popular insurgency developing out of the health care debacle. Trump’s Incompetence Around Health Care Assaults His Base One of the most emotively powerful (and still “respectable” as opposed to the racist and misogynist motifs audible) themes animating the Republican base against Obama and Clinton was the debacle known as Obamacare. Of course that debacle was partially manufactured by the Republican Party itself before Trump was elected. Insurance companies lost their own government insurance for extending coverage, and with that withdrew from small high risk markets, the very same markets Republicans typically represent in Congress. In turn, these political representatives could, a bit disingenuously, charge the earlier presidential administration with ruining the health care of their constituents and mobilize for an alternative. The problem is, of course, that an alternative is not as simple to manufacture as Obamacare’s poison. Those familiar in health care policy and practice could laugh at Trump’s discovery of its complexity were his leadership in devising its alternative not so pathetic. Finally, a second effort to invent an alternative policy passed the House, despite its condemnation by the American Medical Association among other health care professionals and advocates. Rather than return triumphant to their base, however, most Republican Congressmen who signed onto the “reform” hid from their town halls, recognizing the fury their constituents had for being sold a bill of goods that threatened the mortal well-being of them and their families. Indeed, some could hope that the maleness of the decision could move a bit more gender consciousness in the mobilization to come. That movement needs be mobilized, but it is coming. This is a classic legitimation crisis. A dysfunctional health care system, which the Republicans helped to make but clearly now own, is being forced on people who will suffer from it. This is not only sparking moving stories but clear outrage by those who are the Republicans’ electorate. It is hard to imagine how Republicans, whose President is at risk of being accused of high crimes and treason, or at least the obstruction of justice, and whose competence in managing life and death policy changes, as in health care, can retain control of the House after 2018. Past racially motivated gerrymandering may assure some of that survival, but even that now has been declared unconstitutional. The GOP is at risk of death with Trump in the White House. Legitimation Crisis Does Not Determine Its Alternative Apart from facing down a violent crisis (think of the German Reichstag in 1933 or bombings of apartment house buildings in 1999 Moscow, Buynaksk and Volgodonsk), I can see no means by which Trump can survive the legitimation crisis brewed out of a combination of Russian hybrid warfare, obstruction of justice and health care crisis in which he is now implicated. He will be impeached, or he will resign, before his term concludes in 2020. But that end does not, by any means, signal what is the alternative. Some dystopian but perhaps realistic futurists a year ago anticipated that this was some clever plot by Tea Party wizards to engineer their man’s elevation to President. But Mike Pence is himself implicated in many of the legal, and cultural, troubles around Russian interference in our democratic process. Indeed, for some, Trump is better than the ideologically rigid, homophobic, even if twitter averse, Pence. For that reason, Nixon’s threatened impeachment was enabled by the resignation of his Vice President, Spiro Agnew, and replacement with the Congress-friendly former Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford comes to mind. No doubt some work to figure the analogous now. There are many political figures plotting alternative futures for the time after Trump is impeached or resigns. But this should also be a time where those in civil society figure futures beyond the power elite whose management of our political and economic system brought us to this legitimation crisis. While I have focused in this series of publications on the legitimation crisis made by Donald Trump, this is not just Trump’s legitimation crisis. As Nancy Fraser has emphasized, this is a deeper crisis whose transcendence might ultimately enable our betterment. But that is only if we think beyond the system that brought us here in the first place, and toward a system that might enable us not just to survive, but to thrive. (April 7, 2017) G. Wayne Miller, “Foreign-policy experts assess impact of missile strike against Syria” Providence Journal On The Missile Attack in Syria Michael D. Kennedy April 7, 2017 Trump's decision to missile attack the Syrian airbase reflects known qualities and projects uncertain futures.  With this action, Trump postures the reactive and potentially reckless leader that puts global arsenals on edge, mitigated only by the facts that a) within the last days, professionals are more prominent in the National Security Council and b) the GOP seems united in supporting this action which signals Trump's difference from the Obama they called feckless around red lines.  With this action, Trump distracts from the legitimation crisis around his presidency that had been escalating, not only by redirecting our attention to his muscular response to a war crime, but also by apparently challenging Russian President Putin whose support for Assad makes this action even riskier.  We need to wonder, however, whether this "measured response" (it was by no means a signal of intended full scale assault) is not itself remarkable theater; after all, Russia was forewarned that this was coming, and thus, can be seen as partnering in assuring its minimal kinetic effect while maximizing its potential diplomatic effect.  Finally, we must consider that even the most carefully planned actions carry terrific risk of unintended consequences; the Syrian war, with its multiple conflicting interests, makes any projected outcomes based on war game strategies quite uncertain; it is filled with actors ready to mislead to gain short term advantage.  While I believe this to be a single act intended to force negotiations to conclusion that Russia, Turkey and Iran lead, I fear this also could spill over (certainly not by design) into a new more escalated conflict pitting regional, and global, powers against one another.  Trump has not inspired trust across his nation, much less the world. This action could magnify that distrust dramatically, or earn him respect. I fear the former is more likely.  Attacking Higher Education Kills More than Academic Freedom Michael D. Kennedy* The Hungarian government has proposed changes to its regulations on National Higher Education that may force Central European University (CEU), 25 years in Budapest, to end its work in its home city. To force that university into exile is not unprecedented, but such an attack is more consistent with authoritarianisms ignorant of education’s value than it is a country in the heart of the European Union. This attack on academic freedom follows an emergent pattern. This assault seems similar to the Russian authorities’ attack on European University St. Petersburg. There too, legislative changes with a façade of normality camouflage the intent to destroy the irritant authoritarians despise: thinking beyond legislated script. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also has closed universities in Turkey and detained tens of thousands of academics, activists, journalists and others who challenge his account of progress and threat.   It’s not surprising, however, that such leaders prefer obedience to the creative and critical thinking 21st century universities inspire. It should be inconceivable that the international community and societies themselves would tolerate pseudo-law without justice, a promise of order without promise of a future. Once upon a time not so long ago the West stepped up. In 2004, Aleksander Lukashenko of Belarus had had enough. Although European Humanities University (EHU) followed every appropriate law, the Belarusian president found the kinds of students with their refined critical thinking to be too much of a threat to abide in his nation. He proposed to move its change beginning with the forced resignation of this independent university’s president. Anatoli Mikhailov refused to step down, but the international community stepped up. EHU went into exile, supported by a range of donors across the democratic world, with exceptional support by and hospitality in Lithuania. That was more than a decade ago, and EHU still enjoys support from many despite the fact that nobody could have expected a university in exile would have to survive this long. What many could have thought then to be a blip on the screen of transition looks now like a harbinger of things to come not only in the authoritarian world but in the European Union itself. This cannot be. While the fate of a single university may seem small to a European Union and broader West with many great challenges - from Brexit to refugee crisis -- it is not. Breaking systems is the authoritarian’s way, so that only they can step up to fix the mess they made. In such fashion they prove their self-fulfilling foresight, and their self-understood indispensability. Breaking a university is clearly authoritarianism’s expression. Democracies of the world cannot tolerate this in a nation claiming membership in their association. Michael D. Kennedy is professor of sociology and international and public affairs at Brown University, the author of Globalizing Knowledge, and a member of the governing board of European Humanities University and the advisory board of the Open Society Foundations’ Higher Education Support Program. (March 2, 2017) “Trump’s Articulation of the Nation” http://www.rifuture.org/trumps-articulation-of-the-nation/ (I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017 at the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs) Trump’s Articulation of the Nation* Michael D. Kennedy Nationalism has many bad connotations, but at its root it is commonplace. Its ideology is simple: every nation deserves its own state, which in turn, enables that nation to fulfill its destiny while building on its history. Before it became punny, Craig Calhoun called nationalism the trump card of identities and ideologies. Trump articulated that vision last night while celebrating every nation’s right to “chart their own path”. As every nation, our nation is special, but perhaps a bit more special than others. By celebrating greatness, pride, and optimism as key ingredients of the enduring American spirit, the USA can lead the world, Trump suggested. That may be what Trump’s advisor had in mind when he declared earlier in the week at the CPAC meeting that the USA is “a nation with a culture and a reason for being.” Every nation may be special but the structure into which every nation pours its soul is relatively consistent. Those structures are, however, also always contradictory. The articulation of any nation has clear alternatives built within it whose mobilizations can ensure legitimacy or move its crisis. Both were present in Trump’s speech. When mobilizing nationalism, nearly every nation recognizes soldiers whose ultimate sacrifices seal the sanctity of the national bond. But moving a nation into unjust wars, or into bungled missions, can delegitimate a nation’s leadership. Ryan Owens’ martyrdom deserves mourning, but for just that reason, his father’s challenge to Trump is all the more powerful. Nationalism needs enemies to flourish, but how one names them is itself a choice. Bad Dudes might be good, for nobody I know belongs to that religion. Drug dealers and criminals are also relatively good enemies, but when it comes to gang members, it can get complicated. It’s not always easy to distinguish groups of Bad Dudes and people of color who congregate outside their homes. Indeed, when this discourse combines with mixed messages on deportation whose practice has already ruined families and communities, one can see why trust suffers. Trump also has embraced a position controversial among those with expertise and experience in international affairs: to name the enemy without “Radical Islamic Terrorism”. For the same reasons many Christians resent association with White Supremacists who terrorize communities of color, substantial parts of the Muslim world, and our own Muslim citizens and residents and their allies, find the problem to be in terror, not religion. But if you believe that the world approaches a clash between Christianity and Islam, as Trump Advisor Bannon is reputed to believe, the name is perfect. It mobilizes religious division magnificently. Racial division in American nationalism is harder to articulate. President Trump began his speech by recognizing African American history month, and speaks of civil rights in the language of educational choice. It’s clear that American nationalism cannot speak too crudely in racist terms to be legitimate, but it is clear that whiteness remains the race of reference. President Trump has cleaned up his language – when scripted he does not other people of color by marking them with “the” – the African Americans, for example. He would never speak of “the Whites” of course. Clearly it helps to follow the monitor when presenting a culturally complex message. It is also, however, an economically complex message. Where President Trump departs most from previous administrations is in his economic nationalism. It’s not too different from how I grew up in Bethlehem Pennsylvania, actually. Once the home of now bankrupt Bethlehem Steel, all classes working in the industry could not drive a foreign car. “Buy American” defined livelihoods. Of course neoliberalism’s globalization changed all that, diminishing the steel industry and other manufacturing sectors. President Trump mobilizes that resentment of decline with his own nationalism, focusing on unfair trading practices (while conveniently ignoring technological changes). Economic nationalism is not intrinsically wrong, but it is a lot more complex to manage than even health care reform, which the President now recognizes as rather complex. Even here, however, economic nationalism is not focused on lifting all boats in the national sea. While we all might benefit from rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure (state-led development!!!), those jobs building for the private sector are not so public. More clearly than anything else, the President’s promise to require American-made steel in building the pipelines that Native Americans, environmental activists and others opposed, and thought they stopped, is, to the say the least, contentious. In this case, instead of building a green economy dedicated to public health, Trump’s economic nationalism pits the hunger of (potentially) union labor looking for jobs against other American citizens who have risked much to defend their way of life, and the future for us all. Beneath every nationalism, then, is a choice about which nation is being celebrated. The trick of nationalism is to distract us from divisions of power and privilege and to declare that we all bleed red. That may be true, but it’s not at all clear that we all see truth (which, with liberty and justice, Trump claims to be the centerpiece of the American nation) in the same way. *At the invitation of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, I published a shorter version of this essay on March 1, 2017. It clearly builds on my previous work on the sociology of the nation. (February 21, 2017) “The Conflicts and Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/conflicts-contradictions-trump-legitimation-crisis/ The Conflicts & Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis Michael D. Kennedy February 20, 2017 Not all contradictions accompanying President Trump’s governance magnify the legitimation crisis increasingly apparent. Some merely reinforce the cultural conflict that were apparent during the election itself, but others threaten the bedrock of his legitimacy. In particular, the crisis around Russia may erode the last vestiges of cultural authority buttressing his legal or institutional authority. Nevertheless, unless a broader coalition than those already in opposition act, Trump’s legitimation crisis could turn into an existential crisis for America. In what follows, I examine 6 conflicts shaping Trump’s legitimation crisis in order to consider how they could accumulate to risk the nation itself. Trump’s economic nationalism is his anchor, but its sustainability is not obvious. Made in America was a union slogan that neoliberals with their embrace of free trade and globalization thought an anachronism. Promising to build a new fleet of aircraft for America’s defense is one way to build a genuinely popular base among America’s labor unions and other workers. It’s not obvious, however, that such economic nationalism, beyond funding America’s military contractors, is sustainable. Not only are US retailers concerned, but GOP leaders beyond his inner circle no doubt worry about ensuing trade wars that could deflate the world economy. Civil and political opposition together with the courts defeated Trump’s Muslim Ban, but we are told he’s coming back with a more legally defensible executive action. If Trump’s new order meets legal requirements, Trump might regain some respect among those who still believe in the merits of the judicial branch. However, this reconstruction will do nothing to restore the damage done to our nation’s place vis-à-vis the Muslim world and for US citizens and residents with Muslim associations, their allies and those who depend on their labor and learning. Within Silicon Valley and among universities, not to mention those who fear religious hatred to be the foundation of real world apocalypse, Trump may never recover legitimate authority. However, the implementation of this ban would manifest the vision of a fundamental conflict between Christianity and Islam that the President’s Advisor, Steve Bannon, and his followers consider axiomatic of the age. With such policy, Trump secures another base of support, even if he undermines American security in the process. Deportation of the undocumented intensifies, and punishment for those who articulate sanctuary in policy and practice grows, but where this goes nobody knows. The escalation of deportation practice and accompanying GOP maneuvers in congress and the executive branch, even as some mayors and governors have declared their fundamental opposition, promise a measure of constitutional and real conflict America has not seen since desegregation. In this, we can see some of Putin’s playbook – as his own legitimacy suffered, he escalated conflict first in Chechnya and then in a subsequent decade Ukraine. Russia’s hybrid wars may find their replication in America, generating a hybrid civil war that Trump can use to consolidate his hold on power. He said he would bring law and order to America after all, but this time I fear law and order without cultural authority will induce real conflict in America itself. Attacks on the media as the enemy of the people magnifies a conflict that distracts from the growing legitimation crisis. Although Trump is notorious for his aggressive approach to the media, and even threats to individual journalists like Katy Tur, his performance in the so-called 2/17/17 press conference clarifies his method of governance. While he cannot deny the importance of a free press given its centrality to our constitutional makeup, he can reconstruct them not as a free press but as his political opposition and an enemy of the American people. This outrageous maneuver has moved some responsible Republicans, like John McCain, to protest but this is hardly enough to stew the legitimation crisis. After all, attacking the press also appeals to his base and is part of a longer range strategy to diminish critical reason and evidentiary arguments in our public sphere. This assault extends to all kinds of science too, most critically environmental science, where those who seek to undermine environmental protection come to be appointed to head the agency designed to protect it. I anticipate, further, that Trump will move environmentally hazardous projects ahead, around fracking and especially DAPL and Keystone, inviting ever more vigorous forms of civil resistance so as to prove that this is a political matter, not a scientific or moral one. Authority matters more than truthfulness in the Trump regime, which if triumphant, signals the dissolution of a free press no matter what its legal standing. The arrogance of Whiteness works to consolidate his base, until it winds up assaulting the self-understood moral integrity with which folks with racial privilege define themselves. When Trump asked April Ryan, an African American White House reporter to convene her friends in the Congressional Black Caucus (), Black folks and their allies can mark the racism, but they won’t be surprised given how such blatant condescension builds on patterns of recurrent Whiteness. Moving this story could mobilize Trump’s opposition, but even that will help to consolidate the base of his power because making America great again was, implicitly, about making America white again. Here again Bannon helps us see more clearly what is going on. While he himself might try to downplay the racist elements of his vision, he opens the space for just that resurgence when celebrating an era of American history known for its modern repression of civil rights struggles. When folks like Sherrilyn Ifill point today to Republican efforts to limit voting rights, or to the explicitly racist past of our now Attorney General, they do not undermine Trump’s base. The Trump administration’s racist supporters deny their whiteness with a wink and a mean nod to say we don’t need you folks because Democrats have you in their pocket anyway, and we have redrawn the electoral system to assure that white power will prevail regardless of your protest. “Know your place” helps to buttress Trump’s legal authority by invoking America’s founding racist culture. Of course we could imagine a different whiteness, one that recoils from, for example, such misogynistic and crude treatment of women as Trump has been known to practice, and even to crow about. Trump’s electoral support by white women proved otherwise, however. One could imagine that when that whiteness is combined with anti-Semitism, if not by Trump and his family but by his staff and their followers, a critical crack in the hegemony of Know-Nothing Whiteness begins to shine. That, however, may only bear critical fruit when explicitly linked to the rise of fascist movements across the world. The implication of Russia in the US election and Trump’s vision of a new world order is the accelerator of legitimation crisis. America First does not only recall the spirit of American anti-Semitism, but it also evokes the message of resurgent nationalisms across the world, beginning first and foremost with Putin’s leadership in Russia. Although his regime has not been directly implicated in the rise of all of the other nationalist populist regimes in Europe, from Orban in Hungary to the Kaczynski-directed regime in Poland, Putin’s influence on Brexit, and now in French elections, is popularly known. All these nationalist expressions will do more than illuminate a racist mirror: they will move the world toward increased violence within and across nations. Of course that is speculation and Trump’s resemblance to such figures is not an impeachable offense. But wondering about how much Putin is tied to Trump’s election, how many of Trump’s advisors and families are implicated in Russian affairs, and how Russian interests are implicated in the rise of Trump and his policies today, is Trump’s greatest point of vulnerability. Of course to discover certain ties could border on, if not define, treason itself. With concerns for his and his family’s violation of the constitution’s emoluments clause, that might be enough. But the key problem may be his own arrogance; Trump appears to believe he is only accountable to himself, and to the people as he defines the people, which means only those who support him, those who are nice to him. By refusing to be transparent in his dealings with Russia, he only increases suspicion and doubt. That, in turn, creates the possibility for some Republicans, the intelligence community, and those for whom defense of the constitution and sensible policy trumps partisanship or presidential servility, to join together and investigate to whom he is accountable. A public and bipartisan investigation of the ties of Trump, his business and his electoral team to Russia during the election is critical to restoring the possibility of Trump’s legitimacy in America. We know Putin is only accountable to Putin. To the extent Trump takes that page from Putin’s script his presidency will fail. It is, however, important to keep in mind that Trump’s legitimation crisis is not necessarily America’s legitimation crisis. America is more than those who defend Know Nothing white supremacy fostering a Holy War with Islam and a civil war with communities defending families and neighborhoods from the terror of deportation run amok. Trump’s legitimation crisis could, however, become America’s existential crisis if Americans of intellectual and political responsibility don’t come together to see the catastrophe Trump sows, and to figure the constitutional means to stop it now. (February 15, 2017) “The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America Michael D. Kennedy February 14, 2017 In this moment, we fix on Mike Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor. Speculation flies as to why this happened. Officially, it is because he lied to Vice President Pence, putting the latter into a position of lying to the public about the substance of Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador while Obama was still president. Some speculate that Flynn was forced out only because the Washington Post was about to publish a story about it. But the crisis is far deeper than personal betrayal or managerial incompetence in the White House. Legitimation Crisis brews. The term evokes the German philosopher and sociologist Jurgen Habermas and his 1975 book of that title. We are not in what Habermas would call a system crisis, where the demands of the system are incompatible and can’t be hierarchically integrated. The crisis is much more cultural because such a large portion of the US public doesn’t believe Trump is legitimate. And that portion will grow. Of course some believe the presidential election was rigged, but many more people believe that Trump’s legitimacy suffers because his excesses have not been tamed by the awesomeness of the presidential office itself. He is, rather, tarnishing it with his own arrogance and refusal to be treated like other presidents (releasing taxes and divesting assets), and with his own incompetence in managing not only world and national affairs but even his own staff. Most people probably still want to believe Trump’s authority legitimate, but I think that teeters on the edge. In order to be prepared for the coming full scale legitimation crisis, we need to anticipate that moment when Trump might have legal authority, but will lack the cultural authority to exercise it. The crisis has its roots in the occasionally overt but always subliminally present resurgent whiteness and misogyny of Trump’s candidacy and early administration. We all know too well how grabbing private parts, the Wall, the Ban, and the know-nothing failure to see the danger of embracing white supremacists have communicated to many which citizens count, and how others need to explain why they need to be respected in Trump’s America. Trump won the election, however, and with that victory, the chance for the Republican Party to realize many of its dreams, from an assault on environmental regulations to a new Supreme Court Majority that could, ultimately, overturn US policy on women’s reproductive rights. In the run-up to the inauguration, Republicans consolidated Trump’s victory with their own declarations of respect, despite the alienation and disgust so many articulated during the primaries and even the general election. Republicans are increasingly likely to see, however, that they are tying both their individual and Party futures to a ship whose reckless captain believes it can survive any glancing blow from only the apparent iceberg. They could just grab lifeboats, but they will increasingly see that they are too far from safe shores. I anticipate that they will decide that they need to take command of the vessel to steer it away from a cascading legitimation crisis. Of course that, itself, builds on more enduring inequities of America. Many have long criticized the biases of the rule of law in the US, where for the wealthy and white one set of rules and punishments exist, and for people of color and those without legal counsel and tax accountants at the ready, another set rules. Trump’s behavior is making this explicit, and leading not just radicals but many leading American politicians to openly defy how the law is made. Consider how the struggle over sanctuary cities and forced deportations is playing out. Second, anticipate an increasingly overt contest for authority within the Trump administration between Trump’s ideologues and those who have served both Republican and Democratic administrations, notably so many former military officers who now lead many offices. While they may have preferred Republican administrations, they respected the rule of law and their oath to defend the constitution above all else. With so many constitutional violations charged, from concerns over emoluments to treason itself, these generals and others may have to choose their loyalties to Trump or to Constitution. And even if they do not perceive a choice, the public just might. I frankly cannot see how the brewing legitimation crisis will do anything other than worsen along these two lines and others. Two things could avert this disaster, however. The first is an even greater disaster. We know from history how authoritarians stage, or manipulate, violent crisis to arrogate greater power. Whether in the assault on the German Reichstag in 1933 or the Moscow theater hostage crisis in 2002, legitimation crisis can be repressed by declaring the security of the state to be at risk. When Stephen Miller, the White spokesperson, insisted that the authority of the president “will not be questioned”, too many felt an authoritarian chill in the air. The second will be a temporary crisis, but it will demonstrate the resilience of our democratic institutions. That momentary crisis will take place with the impeachment, or the voluntary resignation, of Donald Trump. Vice President Pence has many detractors, but he has the political experience, and perhaps mental balance, to recognize that the USA heads toward a legitimation crisis from which it will not recover without a reset of national solidarity on far more inclusive and mutually respectful democratic foundations. It’s hard to be confident about the likelihood of any of these scenarios. But as a testament of the times, I can’t imagine a smooth extension of the present into the future. That future cannot digest the deepening legitimation crisis facing our nation. (February 3, 2017) “On Explaining Trump in the World: In Response to Maria Eugenia Plano and Paula Lugones” portions of this response can be found in Spanish in this interview: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/comportamiento-erratico-magnate-domesticado_0_SyovmDCdx.html “On Explaining Trump in the World” Michael D. Kennedy February 3, 2017 The election of Donald Trump was a surprise for many scholars and election commentators. His performance as President does not change previously held assessments of his character and competence. It does change, however, how we need to think about the US in the world and of the role of its president. If Trump’s ambition were to create greater uncertainty across the world, he has succeeded. His telephone manners, his disinterest in consistency, and the license he gives to those around him to formulate US policy contrary to their president’s own statements are not at all consistent with previous US presidents. He is unprecedented, which means the rest of the world, and the US public itself, need to figure out what he brings to US leadership. I have three accounts -- one flattering, one sobering, and one frightening. Some like to believe that Trump is a master negotiator, and that he tweets or otherwise declares outrageous positions so that subsequent positions, even if still problematic, lead everyone to relief. To threaten trade war with Mexico and insist on the wall is outrageous, but the threat may have been enough to get some US-based corporations to reconsider their foreign direct investment. Simply, he is wild and unpredictable because it improves his room for maneuver. But this flattering portrait depends on our belief that he knows what he is doing. I don’t think he does. It’s sobering to consider that Trump is, perhaps, just too simple minded. The world is far more complex than a theory knit from his practice allows. First, he gives no evidence of understanding how the global economy and sovereignty work together. For example, it’s actually hard to define when a car is made in the US given the spread of the car parts supply chain. When does that import tax happen then? It does not seem, either, that he understands diplomacy at all – threatening and insulting allies is not a good way to assure enduring and deep partnerships. How can you propose appointing to the European Union an ambassador who proposes that he might contribute to the EU in a way similar to how he helped the Soviet Union? He likes to claim that he helped the USSR break apart. Secretary of Defense Mattis has to reassure Japanese and South Korean allies that the USA is really with them, contrary to their Trump-induced anxiety; that suggests that the role of Mattis and others with some gravitas is to be the adults in the White House as the adolescent plays with his twitter. My final account is frightening. I have previously identified Trump with Putin and Brexit as examples of Übermensch Escapism, in which its proponents argue that strength and bold actions are what’s need to address intractable problems. By breaking the system, they argue, one might begin to fix the problem. Putin has done that with his attacks on Ukraine, Brexit has done that with the vote to leave the EU, and Trump’s behavior indicates that he is willing to break all sorts of American institutions, practices, and alliances to “solve” the problem that led his voters to elect him. Some thought that we could be witnessing a new Axis or Alliance, with Putin, leaders like Orban in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey, and Trump consolidating a new vision of the world, where might makes right and liberalism becomes anachronism. This, I believe, is wrong. I frankly think this final, frightening account is the most likely, but it is also the most unstable because it depends on increasing unpredictability. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s denunciation of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine completely surprised me, even if I also welcomed this recognition of the Russian violation of global norms with that invasion. But that’s the problem with Übermensch Escapism. I fear Trump’s erratic behavior, something many hoped would be tamed by the weight of the Oval Office, will not go away. I anticipate that if it continues on this level, or even grows worse, a group of responsible Republicans, alongside Democrats, will move to impeach him. That will certainly be good for the GOP if they do. I just hope that his unpredictability does not lead us to war beyond our borders, or to an escalation of distrust if not also of violence within our borders, before he is forced out of office. But there he goes again, lowering the bar of my expectations. Should I just be happy if no more blood is spilt by his erraticism even if he continues to break the institutions of the world whose transformation might actually deliver fairness and justice, or even survival given the threat of climate change? Predictions are too risky in the Time of Trump, for he has surprised all of us many times already. But we need to prepare for the worst, and a worst that is beyond our sober imagination. (January 30, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #MuslimBan in Providence Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-the-muslimban/#.WJUw2rYrK8o Love, Solidarity & the #MuslimBan in Providence, Rhode Island Michael D. Kennedy January 30, 2017 Some 2,000 people from Providence, Rhode Island & environs assembled in the same place the #WomensMarch had gathered 8 days prior, this time to denounce Donald Trump’s Executive Order on immigration, effectively known in this community, and across the US and the world, as the #MuslimBan. The assembly reflected so many layers of cultural politics, love and solidarity that an ethnographic moment cannot capture. But it is clear that, in the historical sociological sense, these protests are eventful, and redefining the meaning of Trump’s presidency already. There is an overwhelming sense of momentum. Although the size of the protest was probably less than half of what it was for the #WomensMarch, many showed up on a chilly overcast day for an event only planned the night before.. Too, this protest felt less celebratory of friends and community, and more determined. Anger was more palpable. As before, Rhode Island’s governor, Gina Raimondo, was there, declaring that the whole state stood opposed to such policies as this #MuslimBan; her words were even more emphatic this time. The Providence Mayor, Jorge Elorza, himself the son of Dominican immigrants, declared that this would be a sanctuary city. But the order of address also changed. While the governor began the speeches last weekend, the first elected official to step up was State Senator Jeanine Calkin, one of those whose support for a political revolution in Rhode Island life moved her to unseat a more conventional Democrat in 2016. Her prominence in the speakers’ lineup was also more immediately deserved here, as she was among those who started planning the event at 6 pm on the previous night. She also articulated a recurring theme. She recalled her grandfather’s Jewish family in Czechoslovakia and those who died due to hate; these times reminded her of a letter from a relative who tried to get him to America, but who ultimately failed. This memory of loss in her own family moves her, with this #MuslimBan, to anger today. State Representative Aaron Regunberg evoked a similar story about his own Jewish ancestors fleeing genocide as reason for why Rhode Island must be a sanctuary for all now. Rabbi Michelle Dardashti of the Brown-Rhode Island School of Design Hillel also spoke of Jewish antecedents -- her own Iranian ties would have meant that she, too, would have been excluded from sanctuary were she seeking it in the USA in these times. The significance of solidarity was a more general, and prominent, theme. The Reverend Doctor Don Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, was one of the first speakers. After distancing himself, and the event, from the very few hateful signs present, Anderson declared that this was a movement of love, even while also a struggle against evil. “The #MuslimBan is evil,” he said simply, directly, powerfully. Religiosity was in full evidence on this day, but Muslims were less prominent among the speakers. However, Mufti Ikram Ul Haq from the Rhode Island Council for Mutual Advancement emphasized, as so many Muslims are obliged to do in public in these times, not only the importance of love and solidarity, but also of learning. He seemed to trust that learning about Islam could help quell the hate mobilizing not only such executive orders as Trump’s but also such attacks like those we saw in Quebec on that same day. Especially in contrast to its opponents, it’s striking just how much this movement celebrating religious tolerance and diversity believes in the power of learning over the ignorance of smug assertion. While the assembly was in part about the solidarity of Rhode Island, of its civil society and of its political society, of its Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others, against hate, against the #MuslimBan, it was also about a political movement. That was evident for its organizers: Resist Hate Rhode Island and the Working Families Party. These movements, while often identified with Bernie Sanders and his political revolution, have a longer, and more diverse, genealogy. For example, the day’s first speaker, Laufton Ascencao-Longo, is not only associated with both movements, but also worked on progressive politics and movements in Providence and in Pittsburgh in particular, but as well across the country, before Sanders launched his campaign. In fact, the new coalition is quite broad. Ascencao-Longo told me: “The new people, energy, and organizers that are emerging now are genuinely both Hillary and Bernie supporters.” Many of the folks at the demonstration were already planning to spend part of their time together on that Sunday even before the #MuslimBan wreaked its havoc on social ties and national security. Following the protest at the Capitol, and a Saturday meeting in nearby Warwick filled with many who challenged his partial accommodation of Trump http://www.rifuture.org/whitehouse-resist-trump/, the junior Senator from Rhode Island Sheldon Whitehouse faced still more criticism on Sunday. Led to march by the exceptional rhythms of the Extraordinary Rendition Band, hundreds moved from the State Capitol to Nathan Bishop Middle School to challenge the Senator at one of his community meetings. Protesters claimed that Whitehouse is often an ally, and they expected him to “lead the resistance in Washington.” Yet the senator’s vote in support of Mike Pompeo’s appointment as CIA Director is the signal issue demonstrating his failure on these terms. “You can’t normalize these appointments”, said a voice from the crowd. By meeting’s end, he read off the list of Trump’s cabinet appointments he will not support: Treasury, Education, State, Attorney General, EPA director (“really big no”), Labor. He still needs to talk with Wilbur Ross, candidate for Secretary of Commerce, however. The terms of love and solidarity in opposition cannot mean the absence of conflict and disagreement within that opposition. It ought lead us to rethink what solidarity means. While Trump’s solidarity may insist on a vision of America based on whiteness and loyalty to a leader, the solidarity in opposition looks quite different. The diversity of experiences, perspectives, and political understandings are manifest in this opposition, which includes not only the six elected leaders who spoke (Congressman David Cicilline and General Treasurer Seth Magaziner also addressed the demonstration) but the variety of civil society organizations mobilizing from below. Beyond the movements organizing the protest and mentioned above, speakers on the Capitol Steps included those from the Islamic School of Rhode Island, Prysm, The Fang Collective and The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island, The Step Up Network and DARE, Ahope, and the Community Safety Act Coalition. There are clear differences among those who spoke, and among those who protest, but those differences need to be worked out deliberatively, even if inevitably, with passion. Democracy is not for the faint of heart, nor for those emboldened by the authoritarian personality. Contests between civil society activists and political legislators are not always easy, by any means. But they are evidence of a vital democracy. Life in Providence over the first days of the Trump administration suggest very clearly why the chant, “This Is What Democracy Looks Like!” grows in meaning, and also power, in Rhode Island. (January 22, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-and-the-womensmarch/#.WJUwnLYrK8o “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence, Rhode Island” Prepared for, and forthcoming in, Public Seminar Michael D. Kennedy On January 21, 2017 many of us followed the Extraordinary Rendition Band and their spirited version of “When the Saints Go Marching In” onto the Rhode Island State Capitol grounds. Friendships were evident in groups arriving, or in spontaneous meetings. I met Justine Brown and 2 year old Felicity on arrival, and saw later on social media post Kathryn Dunkelman’s daughter holding a compelling “girl power” sign. These friendship networks were an obvious social foundation for this huge (7500 person) assembly for the smallest state in the union. As Norwegian social anthropologist Marte Knudsen remarked, Mother Nature also seemed to be our friend, appreciating the spirit of the gathering. It was an unseasonably warm and sunny day. The event itself was led by longtime organizer Shanna Wells working both backstage and as emcee for speakers. Governor Gina Raimondo was the first speaker of the 2.5 hour series, in which she declared that she was fired up to defend “our core values” against any assault by the new president. She was followed by Nellie Gorbea, the first Latina to be elected to a state-wide office in New England. Other elected figures followed, including Aaron Regunberg, a founder of Resist Hate RI and Marcia Ranglin-Vassel, a Jamaican immigrant and school teacher whose victory in the 2016 election was evidence of the Bernie Sanders-inspired movement in Rhode Island. The presence of so many elected officials marks the difference from the anti-political Occupy Movement. While both are expressions of resistance, today’s movement in Rhode Island seeks political power, and for some, political revolution. But the Women’s March in Rhode Island was also about civil society. Young women from high school also spoke on stage; a sophomore from Classical High School, Ida Jimenez, spoke of her empowerment through Young Voices. Shirley Lomba Correia, a union member with SEIU, spoke of unions’ importance now. LGBTQ activist Kate Monteiro declared that we, inferring those present on the capitol grounds but also among the millions marching across the nation and the world, were the majority. The spirit of this gathering was joyful and loving. When the Extraordinary Rendition Band offered their musical chant “We don't want your tiny hands anywhere near our underpants", spirits were uplifted, but not with meanness. When a young woman fell ill on stage, several came to the stage to help, and the crowd cleared the way for her mother to come. When a young disturbed man ambled through the crowd shouting “Trump Pence”, elder escorts followed him to be sure that his angry affect would not diminish with a violent confrontation the love so evident in the crowd. The solidarity of this gathering was not based on homogeneity by any means. The diversity of backgrounds, of priorities, of political views, was clear among speakers and in the public, and so apparent in in the poetic rallying cry of the event itself. But that diversity did not diminish solidarity. It deepened it. Rhode Island was clearly part of the global wave signaling an embrace of truthfulness and love in the now, and for the future. Hope, Rhode Island’s motto, was felt in our bones. It was an event of transformational solidarity. (December 29, 2016) “On Democracy in Poland 2016: In Response to Dario Mizrahi” portions of this response are found in http://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2016/12/31/crece-la-alarma-en-europa-por-un-pais-que-se-desliza-hacia-al-autoritarismo/ On Democracy in Poland 2016 – In Response to Dario Mizrahi December 29, 2016 Michael D. Kennedy DM: “In recent months, there have been growing accusations that the Law and Justice Party's government is taking steps against democracy in Poland. What is true of these allegations? In what ways is democracy being endangered?” Various academics and organizations apply scales of more and less democracy; Freedom House in 2016 identified Poland as one of 7 consolidated democracies among postcommunist countries (https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2016). As Hungary already has, Poland may lose that status in 2017 given what has been happening since the election, first, of Law and Justice (PiS acronym in Polish) Party candidate Andrzej Duda as president in May 2015, and then of PIS itself to an absolute majority in the October 2015 parliamentary elections. For the first time in Polish postcommunist history, one party controls both executive and legislative branches of government, and is using that power to complete the revolution against communism that they believed was never, quite, finished. Their methods, the European Commission and others warn, endanger democracy. That worry has been in the global press, and Poland’s liberal press, since the start of 2016. In this sense, worries over democracy’s endangerment are not new; but it is also clear that those who worry are not taking comfort with what has been happening in Poland over the last month. The European Commission declared first in July 2016 and then again in December that “there is a systemic threat to the rule of law in Poland”, above all with regard to the independence of the judiciary (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-4476_en.htm), the branch of government over which PiS does not hold decisive control. In particular, while finding the previous government’s last attempt to stack the Constitutional Tribunal wrong, the EC mainly criticizes the PiS government’s refusal to seat those legally nominated to the body and its refusal to allow the publication, much less enforcement, of its decisions. Democracy is thus, at risk, when it comes to the rule of law in Poland. But democracy’s fulfillment goes well beyond this, of course. Sociologist Charles Tilly (Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 2007: 59.) characterized democracy as “political relations between the state and its citizens featuring broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation”. PiS is diminishing democracy in this broad sense too. PiS has most recently sought to restrict journalists’ access to the Polish parliament, arguing that the latter has abused its privilege. But this action has also led to substantial protest by civil society organizations in December. The Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KoD in Polish acronym) is the most visible organization articulating protest. In this sense, democracy is being revitalized because political participation beyond institutional channels grows. Protest by civil society is vigorous. Defending democracy stimulates democracy, and not only over procedure, but also over basic rights. PiS, given its substantial adherence to a particularly conservative kind of Catholicism (one not very friendly to Pope Francis), has sought to introduce even more restrictive terms on abortion. This too inspired substantial protest in 2016. PiS is looking for ways to diminish this civil society protest. They have considered introducing restrictions on public association and protest. But as in the abortion bill, they have backed off from this ambition given the measure of protest in the country. They will, however, likely try to introduce restrictions on both in 2017. PiS continues to look for ways to extend its administrative control over the country. They have most recently proposed new methods for appointing heads and deputies of more than 100 state-run research institutes so that they might pick “their own” scholars and administrators without competitive review, following a method they already used in appointing leaders of civil service and state media organizations earlier in the year. Finally, we should not only mark PiS power with what its critics call its authoritarian tendencies. It has embarked on various anti-austerity policies, or at least rhetoric, that promises to empower those who feel like they have lost in Poland’s neoliberal embrace. Most notably, as an extension of their “pro-family” Catholic politics, they have initiated a subsidy to families who have more than 2 children. Whether, and for how long, that subsidy is economically feasible is up for debate. But it is one guarantor of PiS popularity in their constituency. DM: Why is the Law and Justice Party's government taking these allegedly authoritarian measures? How far can they go with these policies? PiS draws most of its support from the poorer and more rural parts of the country, which also are more likely to have more conservative religious views. Their election in 2015 was not by any means destined; it was, rather, a contingent outcome. But they work now to consolidate their influence and power for simple political reasons, on the one hand, and on the other, for their own ideals and their own alliances. They believe that previous governments used the levers of power to assure their own vision of Poland, one that is more liberal, European, and urban, and willing to compromise truth. For example, when the PiS Party leader’s twin brother, then President Lech Kaczynski, was killed along with more than 100 others in a plane crash in Smolensk, they believe that the liberal government colluded with Putin to hide the real reason for the crash. Martyrdom, on the one hand, and conspiracy theories, on the other, move True Poles’ passions to find real justice. It’s hard to know how far PiS can go. PiS has backed down from some of its most outrageous legislative proposals under the pressure of civil society’s protest. But it has refused to buckle to EU pressure as well, standing firm in its commitment to diminish the Constitutional Tribunal’s authority and independence. That, in the end, is the real prize for both sides in this contest. If PiS can crush the Tribunal’s legal autonomy, it can set in motion rules that will take another revolution to overturn. However, PiS itself does not appear to have the calculating capacity for introducing the same measure of authoritarian rule as Hungary’s Orban has. PiS makes stupid mistakes. For example, the PiS leadership, in order to avoid novel forms of protest by its political opposition earlier in December, moved the vote on the budget outside the voting chamber, violating the constitution in the process. This, and other poorly considered legislation and practice, is inexplicable if you believe PiS to be mainly calculating. I rather think PiS is enacting a familiar script in Polish history – that it is a martyr for the nation, and will do what is right despite what those who are not truly Polish, whether because they are European or cosmopolitan, demand. And here, violent confrontations, regardless of who initiates them, seem to me inevitable. PiS is, simply, not powerful or competent enough to complete its revolution, on the one hand, and not pragmatic enough to plan for the long run. DM: What can the European Union do if the conflict in Poland gets worse? Do you think it may take any drastic decision or is it very difficult for that to happen? I therefore expect that the conflict in Poland will get worse, but I also expect that the European Union will itself lose coherence evermore. With Trump’s election in the US, EU values are at risk. Trump has more in common with Hungary’s Orban, who has already promised to veto any attempt to sanction Poland for “systemic threat to the rule of law’. The EU will not, cannot, do enough to threaten PiS. But to threaten PiS with sanctions could help consolidate PiS’s Eurosceptic popularity in Poland. The only hope on the horizon I can see will be that the incompetence and contradictoriness of the PiS alliance will alienate their own base. If the opposition can recover its sense, and find a new political voice emerging from the KoD alliance, I can see a way out. But for now, I see no good and obvious roads away from increasing political confrontation in Poland. I just hope it doesn’t turn violent. (November 22, 2016) “Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump” http://www.rifuture.org/recurrent-and-resurgent-whiteness-in-the-time-of-trump/ Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy November 22, 2015 Vibha Pinglé, one of my friends, challenged the white men in her FB audience to take the same responsibility for white nationalists as so many Americans demanded “good Muslims” challenge those who killed the innocent in the name of Islam. Other friends asked the white men in their FB communities to explain how it was that their demographic could justify embracing such a violent, message against women, LGBTQ folks, people of color. They challenged us to explain the whiteness fueling such hate. Interest in explaining whiteness has been surging. Even before Trump was elected, the work of J.D.Vance, Arlie Hochschild, and others was being discussed in earnest, knowing that Trump was mobilizing a sense of whiteness that the “liberal media” overlooked. Sociology, history and other disciplines have long been interested in the history and constitution of whiteness, but more typically as an expression of power, not as an invitation to empathy. While I appreciate that latter disposition, a more critical take on whiteness feels even more important with white nationalists so close to power. Whiteness as power, however, is not just evident in the extreme; it is embedded in the political system. Look, for example at how the electoral college enhanced white power despite the majority of the electorate voting against Trump. We thus need to see white nationalists as an extension of everyday whiteness too. Resurgent whiteness rests on recurrent whiteness. But that is not easy for white liberals to embrace. Even for those white folks who acknowledge that there can be racism without racists, white privilege enables us to believe that we good whites are not part of that racist system. We resent the notion that we are somehow connected to the vile, to the fascist, to the misogynist wrapped up in a white power and privilege of which we are part. We take offense when we are reminded of this by people of color. We easily retreat from engagement with genuinely hurt feelings. That pain is hard for people of color, and especially folks at risk of real injury as the undocumented are, to accept as meaningful. Even for the white anti-racist, then, solidarity demands a certain kind of emotional resilience to carry on in terms that mark the salience of white supremacy. It’s much easier to hang with Bernie Sanders. The campaign Bernie Sanders ran shows the promise of a class-based, progressive, populist movement, a political revolution as he called it. Remember, we are told, he beat Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin, two of the states Clinton lost to Trump. His campaign, and his more recent statements, also show the limits of such an approach to America however. He lost the primary, in part, because he could not talk about class and racial injustices with equal facility. We might anticipate younger political activists and public intellectuals to manage that more readily, especially with folks like Heather McGhee and Ian Haney-Lopez providing the frame. But I’m afraid that is not the lesson recurrent whiteness is developing in response to resurgent whiteness. So many of my white friends, as well as prominent white folks who enjoy a conversation with an Ivy League professor, tell me to read Mark Lilla’s piece. While Clinton may have been lacking in a variety of ways, they say, it was the Democratic Party’s embrace of identity politics that fueled the white identity politics behind Trump’s victory. Let’s get back to the politics that unite us, and stop the politics that divide us and fuel racism, they imply. I’m still white enough to be surprised by this implicit politics of blaming people of color for Trump’s election. Most folks without this whiteness are not so surprised, however. They are likely to resonate with the disgust Shaun King and others have for this assignment as just more of the same. It’s easy for white liberals to be outraged by Trump’s justifications for appointing folks associated with manifest racism to positions of authority; in this solidarity across racial divides is easily found. But when we argue so much against identity politics, when we emphasize just how much empathy we need for those white folks who supported Trump, resurgent whiteness and recurrent whiteness find common ground. When we define the assault on Native Americans at Standing Rock as a riot, when we overlook the power of sanctuary as an expression of decency and mutuality, whiteness shows its true color. Solidarity around liberal democratic values is not enough to transcend the weight of whiteness in defining power and privilege in these times. Transformative solidarity demands a vision and practice of racial justice in the articulation of that future we wish to see. That solidarity demands a variety of forms of resilience, just as it demands a new politics of inclusion unburdened by whiteness but with white folks there too. That transformative solidarity movement won’t happen if the color line continues to define democracy, and especially if it divides the democratic opposition to this authoritarianism cresting on white supremacy’s wave. (November 11, 2016) “Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump” http://policytrajectories.asa-comparative-historical.org/2016/11/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/#more-546 an extended version: http://www.rifuture.org/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/ Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy November 11, 2016 Three sensibilities of solidarity sweep America, but we need a fourth. Solidarity as Electoral Democracy is apparent in the graciousness of Secretary Clinton’s concession speech, President Obama’s report on his conversation with President-Elect Trump, and in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s heard in calls to give Trump a chance to become presidential, with the difference between his tweets last night and this morning to evidence that he might honor his pledge to be President of all Americans. Solidarity in opposition is readily evident among all those find in Trump’s victory proof of white supremacy as America’s foundation and who mount demonstrations to declare he is not our president. Solidarity as dialogue was manifest in the tough conversation among Michael Moore, Eddie Glaude, Jr. and Anand Giridharadas this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Michael explained how the liberal elite didn’t get those who wore ball caps, Eddie explained how Michael didn’t acknowledge the deep racial animus in this election, and Anand explained that the Midwest needed to meet Manhattan halfway in mutual curiosity. Solidarity depends on all three, but it can’t work if it is limited to these as choices. We need this fusion, and to learn from these different expressions of solidarity in order to build a fourth. Acknowledge that Trump’s campaign has made people fear for their lives, their ways of being, their rights. When white folks see “What a privilege it must be to look past Trump’s racism because it won’t ever affect you”, or when straight folks, citizens, men, and others privileged in our society see something similarly challenging, recognize it’s not necessarily about you. It rather poses this question: how will you use your privilege in solidarity with those legitimately fearful, and already hurt by this election and the hate that it has made legitimate. Second, hear those from the Midwest, and other rural areas, saying that they felt abandoned by the liberal elite. Moore rightly mentioned that Flint fell off the mass media’s attention once President Obama drank water from the tap and said everything would be alright. The Democratic Party establishment has abandoned those it feels captured by Republicans, and has taken constituencies of color for granted. In this, all of those disenfranchised by this current party system are alienated, and need a political revolution to feel like they matter. This is not a revolution, however, based on listening more carefully and improving dialogue. People are suffering, and find little value in philosophical celebrations of dialogue’s importance. Solidarity begins with recognizing others’ conditions of life, and offering more than reassurance that they matter. Putting bodies and other material resources on the line counts. But with whom do we develop this solidarity? Donnie Radcliffe, one of my Midwestern friends, asked that coastal elites recognize the legitimate disaffections of rural folks. Fair enough. But I suggested that we might develop a solidarity that transcends the rural/urban divide by building on a solidarity movement that already exists: the solidarity at Standing Rock in opposition to a corporate elite that has captured state power to move against sacred lands and life giving waters. That’s harder than it sounds, however, for you are asking white folks to reframe with whom they have interests in common. It means moving directly against white supremacy in defining rights to natural resources. As soon as I invoke white supremacy or privilege, however, I immediately betray the solidarity accent with which I think we need start. And for the folks I know who begin there, I also know that’s not the only language they speak. Acknowledging that enduring injustice is a way to articulate the solidarity that enables us to mark other injustices. And that’s why these demonstrations are so important. Like those who protest, I fear this election has destroyed the checks and balances that enable those who don’t share my privilege to feel any modicum of security in Trump’s America. These demonstrations are the signal to Trump, and they will grow louder if he cannot hear, that it’s not his presidential authority or personal magnanimity that will make him president of all Americans. If he does not respect the rights of those who reside among us, he will not be able to govern. It’s not the legislative gridlock that President Obama faced in Washington. It’s civil society roadblock that will define what democracy is about. This America that did not elect Trump will not allow the pundits to say that democracy has spoken and that we must now respect the office of the President, that we must come together to celebrate Trump’s America. Those pundits don’t know what democracy is at root. Democracy is rather about the degree to which “political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected, and mutually binding consultation.” The solidarity of opposition knows this, and is expressing it on the streets. If President Trump does not respect this democracy, solidarity will be rearticulated and grow in opposition. At the same time, those in opposition must also struggle to articulate a solidarity that denies the racism Trump has embodied and has mobilized. It’s not entirely a dialogue of mutuality, however, for it needs begin with recognizing the racism that has defined America, and then we can talk, too, about rustbelt and rural disenfranchisement that has not been acknowledged by “liberal media”. We need build a fourth solidarity with both those recognitions at heart. That means that we need focus on the democracy we want, not the democracy that won. America cannot become great again for that expresses racism resurgent. America might only become great if a new solidarity that respects us all can be found. I can’t see Trump managing that. But I can see America realizing that if those who have taught me about the disenfranchisement of so many come together to articulate a Solidarity that is to come. We need a Transformational Solidarity. (November 9, 2016) “Call It By Its Name” (on the Trump Victory) in http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident The First 100 Days of the Trump Regime http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident Michael D. Kennedy November 9, 2016 I can’t begin with President Trump’s first 100 days. I have to start with the American public’s first 100 days in a Trump regime. I have already written about the danger of Trump as candidate. With his consolidated power, American checks and balances can’t be found in its branches of government. They must be found in the morality of those charged to execute policies (think Hannah Arendt), and in the capacities of civil society to resist injustice. Both must begin with naming the problem. Last year, I branded both Brexit and Trump as Übermensch Escapism, forms of problem solving based on adoration of Putin-like strong man leadership. But it’s even clearer now on what that strength depends: white supremacy laced with misogyny, nativism, heterosexism, and more. In his proposed policies and actual rhetorics, Trump performed a measure of exclusionary politics that led many to label it fascist. While President Elect Trump has promised to be president of all the people, I don’t know why I should trust him to do that. I would rather civil society figure ways to defend itself, and its most vulnerable members, from what Trump has promised in his campaign, and demonstrated in his practice. We need a movement of solidarity that will defend human rights and social justice against a Trump regime that came to power despite the clear majority of people of color, and their allies, voting against him. What is President – Elect Trump’s mission in his first 100 days, or even now? Dismantle White Supremacy. If that’s beyond Presidential power, start by naming the problem. The above replaced that immediately following based on the erroneous assumption that Hillary Clinton would be our next president. Solidarity in America Michael D. Kennedy November 8, 2016 I write on the morning of November 8, 2016 assuming that the opinion polls I follow are right and that I discuss President Clinton’s first 100 days. It’s also anxiety. I can’t imagine Trump’s first 100 days. She has declared that jobs, clean energy, and immigration reform are on the front burner; getting out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and dealing with student debt better might keep those seeking political revolution in line. But she needs more than enact policy wonk consciousness. She needs Soul. I don’t mean religion. And I don’t mean music, and certainly not more ads with Katy Perry. We need a new kind of solidarity in America. We need to go beyond rituals that remind us of when some stand and others kneel; to enact practices that not only bind us together, but enable us to engage our differences; to design our institutions to cultivate mutual care, not to destroy those already suffering. President Clinton needs think not only about policy, but performativity. She needs address not only inequality but also inclusion. She needs enact not only justice, but also solidarity. And it can’t just be her. (October 10, 2016) “The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump” RI Future The Failure, and Abiding Danger, of Trump Michael D. Kennedy October 10, 2016 Available in RI Future The candidacy of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States finds daily a new road to Hell, and threatens to drag the nation, and the world, down with it. I wrote what follows before I watched the debate on October 9. Nothing in that disgusting spectacle changes my sense. I will, however, offer some concluding remarks about how the debate shapes my interpretation of the cultural political landscape in which this spectacle took place. Trump is in a tailspin. An Open Letter from Some Angry Women spelled out the list of affronts from Trump’s lips that have defined his campaign. His disgusting 2005 quotation led a number of Republicans to withdraw their endorsement, at last. Republicans are right to worry about the effects of a Presidential Election day debacle for their down ballot contests, and now they scramble to save their own, personal, electoral futures. But more is going down in flames than a few Senate chances. The defining GOP alliance of evangelicals and free market advocates was already on shaky ground given that Trump is neither devout nor a believer in regulation by market. He believes in strong men being able to rewrite the rules of bankruptcy in order to make a buck and stiff the schmuck. Of course we all know, too, that the famous have the right to assault women according to the Trump holy scriptures. While limiting reproductive health and rights for women has been a hallmark of many evangelical dispositions, celebrating the assault of their mothers, wives, and daughters has finally trumped the pragmatism motivated by their Supreme Court anxieties. If coherence of principles remains a conservative Christian priority, Evangelist Russell Moore’s op-ed last month will get many more readers as Trump’s lewd barbarism becomes ever more difficult to deny. Of course Trump’s destruction of the defining GOP alliance was preceded by the wreckage of its fantasized one. Trump ruined the hopes of a new broader GOP alliance with his celebration of a wall that Mexico would pay for, but that was only the first of many “strong man” celebrations he would offer. His association with former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his surviving spokespersons, has moved Trump to continue celebrating the disastrous policies of “stop and frisk”. A smarter proto-fascist would have tried to build his authoritarianism on a broader base, but Trump’s ideology is just too deeply steeped in racism to be electorally triumphant. As one exceptionally well connected progressive friend predicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton should beat Trump in a landslide. The skeptic at that dinner table predicted HRC victory too, but worried about its certainty. We ought worry, for our nation knows the risk of the October Surprise. Trump’s tailspin risks us all Those who leaked Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street only revealed what Bernie Sanders and everyone who found his commitment to ending Wall Street influence know: those speeches must have been “damned good” for Madame Secretary to have been paid so well for them. This is of course not really news, for we all know that you don’t earn your keep by offending your hosts. However, it does give those opposed to a Clinton victory the chance to redirect her possible supporters to the Green Party or to the Libertarians. Trump’s campaign is very happy about this release, of course, for those who vote for Stein, or stay home, implicitly keep Trump’s hopes alive. Putin is among his greatest supporters. I am no cold warrior, but neither am I naïve about Putin’s Russia. I have spent my academic career analyzing Soviet-type societies and then the transformations of post-communist countries. While we ought be focused on how Putin’s regime has redrawn European state boundaries by invading Ukraine (contrary to Trump’s understanding, reflecting something more than Trump’s careless language ) and by committing war crimes in Syria, we need be much more cautious about how Putin’s skillful manipulation of democratic public opinion within his adversaries’ nations leads to state breakdown. Putin, and Trump, have celebrated Brexit not because they care for globalization’s dispossessed, but because railing against global elites creates room for their brands of militarism and fascism to gain ground. Putin does not stop there, of course – his aim is, ultimately, to weaken both the European Union and NATO, the latter of which Trump has found “obsolete” We ought, therefore, be wary of how Putin will try to maneuver Trump into the White House with his regime’s considerable capacities in information warfare. In the end, however, I agree with my optimistic friend. Should Clinton manage to mobilize those who justifiably fear a Trump regime’s ruin of US international standing and its promised assault on our existing standards of rights for women, people of color, and others (including the dispossessed white folks who celebrate his promise of a return to greatness), we should see a rout of Trump and those who continue to support him. But that won’t be the end of Trump. I don’t mean a new season of The Apprentice. Trump has given license to those who, in the name of opposing political correctness, feel free to demean and harm, in speech and in practice, those they consider inferior. He has encouraged his supporters to think that, should he lose, he was robbed of the victory by illegal means. As a former Pennsylvanian myself, I can readily read his racist surmise when he tells his supporters to observe the polls in certain places. And when Trump loses, do you think his supporters will retreat to their private resentments for the erosion of white privilege in America? The Morning After So I wrote on the morning before the debate, and now the morning after. I found Michelle Goldberg’s account of the debate most HRC sympathetic – while the Secretary could not quite hold onto Michelle Obama’s high road all the time, she did pull us back toward rational democratic deliberation despite the menacing hulk looming behind her, despite Trump’s threat to imprison her should he be elected. Those who declare Trump’s victory in debate can do so only because he has so effectively diminished not only our expectations of what a GOP candidate ought bring. He has helped mobilize the flames of ressentiment so effectively that it overwhelms any politics of respect, whether toward his opponent or toward his Muslim American interlocutor, or towards “the African Americans and the Hispanics”. He advocates a new sense of justice with the rule of law and constitutional integrity as potential casualties. He consolidated his base in that debate and the preceding press conference with such bravado and bullying that he won’t be eclipsed. Those who seek to save the Republican Party will have to go to battle. Barring some extraordinary October surprise, Trump has not only failed in his campaign, but has destroyed the Republican Party in the process. But he remains dangerous, and in fact, without the moderating force of the GOP mainstream, he becomes even more threatening. Trump has fertilized with his lies, grandstanding, and celebrity surmises, with his BS, a measure of white supremacy, bald patriarchy and proto-fascism on American soil I would have never anticipated. This last month of campaigning is not just about who wins the White House. It’s about whether the culture of this contest paves the road to Hell or gives us a chance to reroute toward the Promised Land. I pray for the latter, but the sociologist in me fears the former. The Politics of Progressive Identification and the DNC (available here: http://www.rifuture.org/politics-of-progressive-identification-dnc.html) July 28, 2016 Tonight’s speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton is historic. As we all know by now, she will be the first woman ever nominated by a major US political party to be a candidate for President of the United States. That video of the shattered glass ceiling simulates that achievement. Every progressive must applaud this moment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-glass-ceiling_us_579827fee4b0d3568f85272e Every human ought applaud it too if gender equality matters. In combination with the truly dangerous fantasy Trump presents, http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html most of my friends on the left declare that supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton is both historical necessity and a matter of political responsibility. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-i-support-hillary-clinton-for-president-a-letter-to-my-friends-on-the-left/ I agree, but, as progressives, we need to appreciate how we get there and what her election means for the future. Being progressive is not only about outcome. It’s also about process. It’s about living in our daily life the politics we want to see writ large. But before I point out the challenges of progressive identification with HRC, I wish to acknowledge just fears. If Trump is elected president, one of my gay friends told me, the marital unity he treasures most will be put at risk. We will have as vice -president one of the most fundamentalist religious politicians in the nation whose embrace of extremist anti-LGBTQ politics and anti-choice politics is enough, by itself, to move progressives to mobilize against Trump. Note here religious identification is not the issue. The Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine is a devoted and practicing Catholic, but also supports women’s right to choose and the sanctity of love over homophobia. Rhode Island Bishop Tobin’s take on Kaine https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/local/roman-catholic-bishop-in-rhode-island-criticizes-kaine/2016/07/25/378ad256-529e-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html has prompted healthy debate within the RI Catholic community http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160726/thomas-m-hines-bishop-tobins-arrogant-view-of-tim-kaine The Supreme Court’s composition is too important to allow Republican Party extremists to control those nominations. If Trump is elected president, the global security system will be put at risk. Already my friends on NATO’s eastern flank express profound worry about how Trump’s professed admiration for Putin and skepticism toward NATO put them at risk. Of course NATO’s embrace is hardly an obvious progressive position, but if you live in a place where Russian imperialism threatens, you must choose which superpower to welcome. NATO may not be an obvious place where progressives unify, but we must unify in opposition to the ways in which Trump uses religious and racial differences to divide, and puts all the means of violence, including nuclear weapons, on the table. I agree with those progressives who marked their opposition to President Obama’s drone wars and other ethically compromised means of war. But Trump is worse. We can go on, but to do so only reinforces a legitimate progressive objection. Our vote is sacred and it is our choice. We want to live in a system more authentic, and less compromised. Katelyn Johnson, delegate for Bernie Sanders, said during an interview on MSNBC on July 27 that she wanted her vote to echo “the system I want to live under”; she doesn’t want to drink “the kool-aid of a system I want to dismantle”. Progressives who fear Trump need to hear her, and so many others like her. We can’t allow our concern for outcomes to drown out the everyday practice that makes progressives different. And what is that distinction? We can’t base that distinction on particular substantive issues, even though it is the progressive’s inclination to debate which issue is fundamental. Is it a policy around the Trans Pacific Pipeline or closing GITMO? Perhaps it’s about investing in public goods rather than privatizing them. Like other progressives, I have positions on these and more policy issues. But progressives can, and should, debate these matters based on informed readings of policy consequences and their motivations. I think we come closer to recognizing that distinction when we look for authenticity. One reason Bernie Sanders mobilized so many people was because he has been consistent over decades in his opposition to the concentration of wealth and its deleterious effects on politics and everyday lives. One reason Joe Biden drew the applause for his speech that he did was because he emits, in everyday life and on stage, a sincerity that is not staged in the ways that so many other politicians look manufactured. While both Bernie and Biden are professional politicians, they are different from most. Barack and Michelle Obama are in a class by themselves. Their speeches at this convention moved the house not only for their fine deliveries, but also because they could embody the progressive, and human, alternative that we wish our America could be. If their daughters could play outside a White House built by slaves, we feel the progress that has been, that might be. But here’s the problem. Privileged progressives in our system like to feel good, and to believe that the place of the Obamas indicates that we live in a post-racial society. We do not. We can debate whether particular statistics mark progress or not, but we cannot diminish the profoundly racist underpinnings of the system in which we live, where violence against people of color, whether by police or through the proliferation of guns, whether through a prison industrial complex or in everyday aggressions and exclusions, define the enduring significance of the color line. When progressives celebrate Tim Kaine’s choice by referring to how well he speaks Spanish, and how he was a missionary in Honduras, many POC ask why not just recruit a Latinx person? The answer for too many progressives is obvious. We must win, and to win, we must cut into the demographic who supports Trump, that white male working class electorate, perhaps religious, that might find Kaine’s working class roots and enduring Catholic commitments compelling. But that’s the problem for many progressives who recognize racism’s power. Outcome trumps process, and leads too many progressives to adopt that condescending position of knowing better than POC who declare these candidates to be more of the same old racist system, with glass ceiling broken or not. And it gets worse. I especially appreciate what my friend Justice Gaines shared on Facebook, with wisdom zir friend, Nikkie Ubinas, offered: If Donald Trump wins, it's not because not enough people of color chose not to vote for Hillary. It's because enough people voted for Donald Trump to make him a candidate. It's because people elected Donald Trump. It's because institutions, systems, and people created him. It's because we have corrupt systems that don't give a shit about people of color and poor people. It's because Donald Trump is right in line with our American racist xenophobic and sexist history. It's because Donald Trump is America's enduring legacy. Here’s the issue that so many of my progressive white friends miss, what I miss were I not to listen and learn from Justice and others. In the panic about defeating Trump, progressives can practice reprehensible politics in everyday life, abandoning their commitment to authenticity, equality, and process on the altar of expediency and outcomes defined by those with privilege.   We ought celebrate breaking a glass ceiling, and I will do what I can to defeat Trump and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. But that is not because I am with her. I remain committed to political revolution, and its chances are so much greater with Clinton/Kaine in office than Trump/Pence. I am continuing that political revolution when I work for Clinton/Kaine, but a vote does not fulfill my political responsibility as a progressive. That political responsibility means holding Clinton and Kaine accountable to the Democratic Party Platform those leading the political revolution at DNC moved.  When Bernie endorsed Hillary it was not the end of the political revolution. It was just a signal that it is time to refocus down ballot and on civil society, to mobilize and apply pressure to politicians too easily influenced by Wall Street and other lobbies with money. When Katelyn Johnson, Justice Gaines, and Nikkie Ubinas signal their distance from politics as usual, I will listen and respect their position for that is the foundation of the political revolution, not the election of a particular presidential candidate.  I also respect Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison much, and he said it right today on Morning Joe: "Active citizens need to help politicians govern the country, and one way to do that is to let them know how you really feel…"  And it’s not just holding up placards and maybe even disrupting a speech. It’s about holding authorities accountable.  This DNC platform is different from all others preceding because it was made with the political revolution in mind. Again, Ellison said as much when he anticipated an election in which Clinton and Kaine win, but face active citizens who will demand that a new administration adhere to the Platform’s principles.  Were I to identify the progressive distinction, it’s one in which we respect and recognize one another, being particularly attentive to the ways in which power and violence diminish some and privilege others. Progressives are not defined by the candidates they support, but by the work, in everyday life and in political campaigns and in enduring political struggles, to include everyone in the set of rights and responsibilities that democracy organizes.   Recognition, respect, and maybe even love moves the political revolution, and my identification as progressive.  Ideology in the Time of Trump Is Fantasy (http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html an abbreviated version is here: http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FantasyofTrump) July 21, 2016 We can no longer distinguish Republican and Democratic parties with conservative and liberal labels. Too many Republicans proud of their conservative pedigree have distanced themselves from the party that Donald Trump now leads. Democrats now prefer the term progressive, but it’s not obvious that all those who supported Bernie Sanders will embrace Hillary Clinton despite his endorsement. Bernie led a political revolution against the 1%; it’s hard to see the former Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and Wall Street lecturer in the 99%. But maybe our labels and the methods underlying them are the problem that needs address before we figure our vote and anticipate the post-convention campaigns. When we reference ideologies, we can mix up political self-understanding with the analytical and critical accounting of communicative action. We ought to debate whether Secretary Clinton is really a progressive if she is part of the 1%; or if you prefer America’s version of Kremlinology, we can wait to see whom she chooses as her vice-presidential candidate to decide whether the progressive or moderate label fits her best. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/02/clinton-vs-sanders-whos-the-real-progressive/#.V4-4AJMrLEY But to focus on Clinton’s self-understanding and the ideological connotations of her policy and personnel choices is to do something similar to what the Republicans themselves do in their politics. By focusing on Hillary Rodham Clinton we miss how ideology works in the Time of Trump. There is substantial scholarly work identifying the articulation of Trump in the world of ideology and power. A number of scholars of fascism have made a strong case for why the label fits his practice. From experts on Italy, http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151209/NEWS/151209270 to experts on Germany http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-expert-says-yes-donald-trump-is-a-fascist-and_us_578d1a56e4b0d4229484d3e0 It’s not just that his language can be vulgar and that he diminishes many in his oratory. The label is compelling because it serves to warn us of a fascist future America has so far avoided. For some, however, this is not about an unrealized future, but revenge of the past. One of the world’s leading scholars of race and the history of white people, Nell Painter, marks a steady history of violence against people of color and sometimes their white allies; she argues that Trump borrows from an ideology of American white supremacy to express resentment for a black president and all that accompanies Obama’s leadership. https://www.facebook.com/historiansondonaldtrump/ Rather than being the force for law and order, then, Trump’s performance helps to stimulate the disorder that demands a strong white man to resolve. Trump and his defenders can defend his implicit and explicit racist and fascist speech by declaring he stands opposed to political correctness, celebrating that he tells it like it is. They say he expresses the real frustrations of the American people. But in that very declaration, this coterie declares their whiteness and superiority without ever saying, explicitly, that white supremacy is the route to make America great again. Of course Trump may never declare that he is a fascist or white supremacist, but that is not how ideology works in these times. We live in a time where those who care about truth are eclipsed by those who know how to put on a show, where comedians communicate the truth better than journalists or academics. Trump, while no comedian, is a showman, and knows how to turn any news into useful news. Melania Trump’s presentation with plagiarism, Jeffery Isaac proposes, was a perfect representation of Trump and his campaign: all show and no substance, all mendacity and no truth, and all ego and no real concern for anyone else. Say what you want. Do what you want. Vilify others and then steal their words. Get caught and then try to shout down and bully those who notice. This is not an aberration. This is Trumpism. http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-melania-trumps-plagiarism-matters/ In this light, it would be insufficient to articulate Trump’s communicative power by linking it only to ideologies of fascism and white supremacy. His effect is realized through a celebrity culture that not only seeks salvation in the strong man, the superman, the Ubermensch; it finds in the fantasy of beautiful blonde adult children and the ex-model wife an escapism that appeals to those who feel abandoned by policy wonks, free traders, movement activists, academics, and conventional politicians. Michael D. Kennedy (2015) “European Referendum, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity” Queries 8:66 http://www.queries-feps.eu/Mag8_NEW.pdf They can escape the world in which women and people of color threaten their imagined place and find themselves in the fantasy Trump embodies. These people, in their alienation from the world that exists, enjoy Trump. Fantasy is different from the ideologies associated with conservatism, liberalism, or progressivism. It needs neither coherence nor evidence, for it is not designed to reflect or operate on reality. It is designed to constitute a reality that even its believers know is not real, but nonetheless has an effect that satisfies a desire that cannot be expressed openly in public. And it’s even better if that fantasy is somehow denied, for its proponents then can cry injustice and break the rules even more to prove, ultimately, the reality of that fantasy’s power and of their desire. The Republican National Convention is not just about selecting a presidential candidate; it’s the latest performance of a fantasy that derails the relevance of conventional policy and politics. In order to compete in the fantasy world made in the time of Trump, The Democratic National Convention and ensuing campaign cannot only be an expression of experienced leadership, policy expertise, and progressive and inclusive values. Most American citizens know that the system is in crisis, and desperately wish that the future could be more like the selfie Democrats post rather than what Republicans offer when they picture their interns. https://mic.com/articles/149274/this-dem-intern-selfie-is-dramatically-different-from-paul-ryan-s? But as crises and conflict accumulate, Americans could become afraid that an ideology that embraces them all will be destroyed by the violence of the few, feeding the fantasy that order demands the return of a real man to power even if they, themselves, are not white supremacists and fascists. We have seen how this works across the world. Putin blazed the trail, constituting the fantasy of a Great Russia at risk of destruction, finding evidence of that threat in democracy’s spread in Ukraine, and creating a war that demands even more authoritarian leadership at home. Erdogan has followed suit, finding the perfect opportunity in a bungled and possibly planted coup to impose a new order on Turkey, to impose the fantasy of a Turkey unbridled by expectations of western allies and cosmopolitan intellectuals. Trump and his promoters take note and whip up desire by positing threats (immigrants, Muslims, crooked politicians) to an order that might only be fulfilled if a strong man leads. Those who embrace this fantasy find enjoyment not only in hating those threats, but finally being allowed to say it publicly. Secretary Clinton and her allies may think they are running a convention and campaign against another politician, but they also need to recognize what it means to challenge a fantasy. This 2016 election is not a contest of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. It is about the communicative powers of fantasy and escapism vs. those of political experience, expertise and solidarity. And if that is the contest, the showman will win. In the Time of Trump, knowing how the world works is not more compelling than knowing how to declare that others are stupid. That’s not my fantasy, of course; it is my nightmare. And perhaps that is the point around which Secretary Clinton might become president. It’s not about vision or policy, but it’s about the fear of what Trump has already wrought, and what he might still bring were he to win. To work for the Democrats fulfills an alternative fantasy of salvation, except this time keeping America from descending to fascism and a full throated white supremacist order. This electoral contest is shaped by the contest between those who resent what they believe has happened under Obama, and those who fear of what might be under Trump. I don’t know which will win. Breaking a System Does Not Fix the Problems Michael D. Kennedy June 24, 2016 There are winners and losers in Brexit, but the stakes are bigger than a redistribution of power and privilege. We need to focus our attention on the alternatives in formation. The most apparent loser today is David Cameron, the Prime Minister who resigned after losing the campaign to remain in the EU. But it was his gambit that put the EU referendum on the table in the first place. He may be remembered best in a way that Polish Senator Marek Borowski tweeted, “Cameron: the bloke who burned his house to the ground because he wanted to check if its structure was fireproof”. The most apparent winners in Brexit are its advocates, including Tory Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party. But their victory signals more than the circulation of elites. It trumpets the triumph of a leadership style. Regaining democracy from Brussels bureaucracy expresses its advocates’ most noble claim, but xenophobia and racism are the currents that charge the mobilizing affect animating this new faith. Last fall, I named that faith Übermensch escapism – belief that if we could only be independent of foreign entanglements, we would be free to be rich and to be ourselves. It depends on mobilizing fear of migrants and people of color alongside resentment for those who profit from the global system. Donald Trump’s celebration of Brexit today is only applause for his own style. Knowing how a system works is secondary to knowing how to make the right deal, the faith goes. In fact, sometimes the best gambit is to break the system in order to then demonstrate one’s indispensability. Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, exemplifies that style. Putin broke the security system in Europe by invading Crimea and conducting hybrid warfare within Ukrainian territory. With that unexpected ploy, Putin not only restored his own domestic authority but changed the dynamics of international alliances. Appeasing Putin, rather than enhancing the rule of international law, becomes the new Realpolitik for Real Men. Brexit also breaks the system, and invites others to demonstrate their leadership with similar rebellion. Anticipate more political divorces across the UK, across the EU. But appeals to disdain for others cannot fix the systemic problems that produce the pain Übermenschen promise to fix with their strength. They will, however, take advantage, and they can because the alternative is not compelling. The campaign to remain within the EU could not be so vigorous as promising Brexit, even if it was rational. To challenge Übermensch escapism one needs more than competence and reason, and rather, perhaps, a political revolution based on mobilizing those marginalized by that same alienating system. Solidarity seems more important than ever in light of the dystopian Brexit that will burn those not only within but perhaps even beyond the UK. If only that solidarity were on the horizon. At least I see its glimmer in the words of Sadiq Khan, London’s mayor We all have a responsibility to now seek to heal the divisions that have emerged throughout this campaign - and to focus on that which unites us, rather than that which divides us. I want to send a particular message to the almost one million Europeans living in London, who make a huge contribution to our city - working hard, paying taxes and contributing to our civic and cultural life. You are welcome here. We value the enormous contribution you make to our city and that will not change as a result of this referendum. https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-of-london-response-to-eu-referendum-result Why People Feel the Bern: The Movement for Democracy Beyond Elections Michael D. Kennedy April 25, 2016 From the largest political rally in Rhode Island since JFK http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-to-ri-dont-accept-the-status-quo.html to the morning talk shows on the day after, I feel whiplash more than I feel the Bern. But that is because most political pundits don’t get the point of the political revolution Bernie Sanders articulates. I need to get the Bern back. And so do the people of Rhode Island, the people of the United States. Yes it’s about winning the Democracy Party nomination, and yes there is a narrow path to victory which depends on doing exceptionally well in the primaries tomorrow – in Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, my ancestral home in Pennsylvania and my beloved home today in Rhode Island. But the potential for victory tomorrow is only part of the story. It is, as Bob Plain properly emphasized, about moving beyond the status quo. (http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-to-ri-dont-accept-the-status-quo.html) It’s about the long haul and the power of truth. The truth of Bernie Sanders is not just about his consistency over more than three decades (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3NKvvxcSs). His message about the injustice of inequality has been the same, unlike other conventional political candidates who move with the political winds. It’s not just about the fact that he speaks truth to power: his truth has not been shaped by the donations of the people he claims to challenge. His message is funded by donations of millions of everyday people (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/ ). Political favors are the coin of the realm, but his currency comes in popular support. And that’s the point. I understand why so many of my friends support Secretary Clinton. Like me, they also see that she is far better than Trump. That’s true. They also believe she can get things done. Certainly, but her pragmatism works within a system that is rigged, that is broken. And that’s more about compromise with the powerful than about the power of truth. As Bernie said yesterday, as he does in each speech: our nation ought be judged not by our wealth and power but by how we treat those least privileged among us. With 40% of Providence’s children living in poverty (and 20% of the children of our state - http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150121/NEWS/301219986 ), with Pennsylvania and Rhode Island having the greatest percentage of structurally deficient bridges (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-infrastructure/bridge-data-by-state-inspections-structurally-deficient-totals.html), and the list could go on, we can’t just get things done. We need to make things right. Bernie is not a typical politician. He will not always say the “politic” thing. The reason everyday people #FeelTheBern is because he says things that you only hear in your sociology classes in university, and in sermons by those activists who are moved by the spirit of liberation theology. I was with two of them yesterday in Roger Williams Park listening to Bernie. They were moved. We were moved. And we are not millennials. But we each have been working for decades to teach about, and to change, the injustice of this system. We have worked with social movements for decades to make a difference. And that difference is on the horizon. We need to learn from each social movement on which Bernie Sanders has built this political revolution. Here are just a few. The Civil Rights movement from the 1960s began with civil rights, but continues to build momentum through today to search for political, social and basic human rights too. Black Lives Matter is more than a name for that movement’s expression today. It’s about assuring that the police represent the community they police. It’s about assuring jobs and education, not jail and incarceration, for youth, as Bernie would say. It’s about rights, and it’s about respect. Respect is all over Bernie’s campaign. His previous work in support of veterans is well known, but not because he is supported by a military industrial complex. As he himself argues, we might differ about when to go to war and when not, but we cannot debate the support our veterans deserve given their service to our country https://berniesanders.com/issues/caring-for-our-veterans/ . His support for veterans and for the Black Lives Matter movements, simultaneously, indicates that this is not a conventional campaign. This is a campaign that brings people together in recognition of the injustice that animates. It’s about the Occupy Movement too. Too many think that movement failed, but they are wrong. Thanks to them, we talk about the inequality and the 1% in politics, nobody more forcefully than Bernie. That movement is no longer apparent in their occupation of city parks, but it is apparent in the heart of a political revolution that marks gross inequality as injustice and health care as a right for all. That movement, of course, builds on the union movement in this country whose struggle for equality and a decent wage ought grow more vigorous with Bernie as president if history is any guide. Remember that America’s union movement consolidated its gains with that radical Franklin Delano Roosevelt as president. The environmental movement can readily work within the system, but the dangers of that accommodating view are apparent everyday as compromise leads incrementally toward planetary crisis. Bernie sets his sights differently from Hillary on principle, a difference most evident in their divergent approaches to fracking. Hillary is conditionally for it, but Bernie opposes it. Period. Evidence of the impact of different iterations of the feminist movement are apparent in Bernie’s campaign, but I see it most fundamentally in his commitment to empowerment. Injustice is not only in the system, but it’s also in the ways inequality is expressed behind closed doors, in ways that some treat as religious or natural. The political revolution is about pushing for equality in everyday life, by everyday people. It’s about empowerment. Nowhere did Bernie express yesterday that right to everyday equality better than in declaring, simply, that people have the right to love whomever they want. LGBTQ people and their allies have made a revolution in this country already, even if reaction rears its ugly head. But love, in the end, might be too powerful to quash, especially when love and good business climates go together. Love can make for strange bedfellows, and the image of Pope Francis and Bernie speaking in a hallway following a conference in the Vatican on the moral economy is one of them. But the fact that that seems strange is another sign of a broken and rigged system. Part of love’s power, and why it seems to animate Bernie’s political revolution is because the golden rule – do unto others as one would have them do onto you - is enough for Bernie to express his religious sensibility. And it’s that kind of religiosity that extends solidarity rather than division. Entrepreneurs might even Feel the Bern. In fact, most entrepreneurs are likely to be in the category that will benefit most from the kind of health care reform Bernie advocates. Instead of putting it on small business, embed those costs, as most advanced industrial nations do, in the government so that that public good does not fall on the shoulders of those who try to innovate. That was Bernie’s message yesterday too. “Yes, Yes, Yes, “, you can hear Bernie say, “how am I going to pay for it?”. Not only does Bernie propose to tax income more progressively and wealth more aggressively, but he can also tax that part of the economy that has been getting away with money making scott free, or tax free. Why not tax financial transactions? That’s a growing part of the economy, and a source of increasing inequality simultaneously. This IS about class struggle too. I identify all these social movements that have shaped the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders not only to illustrate that his prospects are based on his embrace of and learning from all sorts of progressive social movements. It’s also because his political revolution is a movement, and not a campaign. His goal is not only to win a nomination and election. His goal is to build a movement that not only changes the Democratic Party platform (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html?) , but changes the way in which our economy, politics, and society are run. That’s why I may not be alone in feeling the whiplash. When we enter the movement, we recognize the challenge, but we also feel solidarity and recognize the power of truth , the integrity that comes with naming the inequality and injustice that work to crush the soul of our people. We can feel progress in the movement, because we can feel the spirit of so many people coming together under the banner of a truthfulness that politics dares not speak. But when we listen to the pundits, they only tell us that Bernie cannot win the nomination in July. They miss the point. This is a political revolution that is not about July or a presidential campaign. It’s about a movement for justice and equality. That can’t be won with an election, but it can be built by voting for Bernie. And that is a small step toward the political revolution that we need in order to make America as it ought to be. Voting in the Democratic Primary for Bernie Sanders is not about assuring he wins the nomination. It’s about assuring that we have a movement that can make a future we believe in. We need a vision that goes well beyond the status quo that is, fundamentally, unjust. And that’s the truth that may change America. That’s why people #FeelTheBern. Solidarity or Escapism March 10, 2016 Michael D. Kennedy Like many Americans, I have been deeply moved by the success Bernie Sanders has achieved in his presidential campaign.  I am moved in a different way to hear that Donald Trump has nearly won the Republican nomination, and that he is about to go on a charm offensive to woo the party establishment.   Both candidates present themselves as outsiders challenging the political system.  It is wrong, however, to consider them equivalent.  One promises solidarity, the other escapism.  The choice they offer is not simply political.  It is moral and religious.   Trump has mobilized those who feel they have been forgotten or cast aside by the system our establishment has built.  He is not unusual in this world.  Like other authoritarians, he evokes an old kind of political authority.  Strong men don’t have to explain how they will change things.  They ask only that we believe they can do it--even if there is no rational reason we should.  Trump urges us to trust him.  But this is not trust, it is escapism.   The faith Trump asks us to place in him is almost religious in nature.  Religion, in fact, is all over this election.  It comes most quietly when it moves most powerfully.    Sanders invokes religion only when asked.  He demonstrates it in his practice, not in his rhetoric. When asked, he offers a religious sensibility that has its roots in his own Jewish identity, resting on the universal principle of care for one another.  He urges a solidarity that aspires to universalism, rather than focusing only on one country or people.   There is a reason why Sanders does not say, “Let's make America great again.”  For too many people, those are code words for a return to times when men were men and women were in the kitchen, when white folks ruled and people of color knew their place. Sanders does say, however, that we ought to make America what it could be, what it ought to be, what it has never been.  He believes our country can be better than it has ever been if we embrace each other, if we seek a solidarity rooted in our common destiny.   Sanders has been living this approach to politics for decades. He is a paragon of consistency.  His integrity is rooted in his politics of solidarity. In this way he contrasts most vividly with Trump. Trump will say what he needs, change his mind, evoke hatred and then insist afterward that he loves the object of his scorn.  He asks us to trust not in what he has done and how he has lived, but in what he conjures to distract us from what should be the real debate.   The choice we face goes beyond differences over the death penalty, reproductive choice, just war, and other profound questions.  It is about the moral and religious foundation that should shape our vote.   We are approaching a choice between integrity, mutual recognition, love and solidarity, on the one hand, and hate, distrust, manipulation and escapism, on the other. One leads to hope.  The other leads to Hell.      Trump will win the Republican nomination, or the Republican Party will consume itself in a convulsion of Biblical proportions. Hillary Clinton may well win the Democratic nomination. Whether she has produced her own vulnerability, or it is a result of the sexism and corruption of our system, she cannot easily escape the taint of her past improprieties. Trump will go after them like a shark smelling blood.  A contest between Trump and Clinton would focus on who is more criminal. That is a horrible choice.  I would rather be forced to choose between solidarity and escapism. Mr. Trump, Secretary Clinton, Who Is Your Favorite Superhero and Why? Michael D. Kennedy September 25, 2015 Many of us have been assigning our Facebook friends Comic Book Heroes to raise Childhood Cancer Awareness (http://www.charitablegamers.com/blogs/filling-facebook-with-superheroes-to-raise-childhood-cancer-awareness), but what about our presidential candidates? I normally write about the sociology of globalizing knowledge (http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24607), but over the last year I have been thinking about how superheroes are more than entertainment. As Ta-Nehisi Coates will no doubt show in his depiction of the Black Panther for Marvel Comics (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/books/ta-nehisi-coates-to-write-black-panther-comic-for-marvel.html?_r=0), superheroes can be partners in shaping social change. By identifying real people with a superhero identity, we might also highlight their greatest powers, and maybe locate their Kryptonite. We could even clarify the contest underlying the presidential primaries. Hillary would probably like to be Wonder Woman. Ms. Magazine nominated the Amazonian to be our president in 1972 and in 2012. But I see Hillary more like the X-Men’s Jean Gray / Phoenix, exploding out of a patriarchal sea in a burst of feminist hope and power. And just like Hillary, the good Jean is sometimes unable to curb her excesses risking her and others’ destruction. Bernie is Captain America. Although Cap can sling a shield like nobody else, philosopher Mark D. White is right: his greatest power is his virtue (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118619269.html). Nobody doubts Bernie’s integrity either, and that, alongside his message, is why he’s surging in the polls. His weakness? Principles may have no place in American politics. That brings us to the Donald where principles pale before celebrity and arrogance. Tony Stark as Iron Man comes closest here, for like Trump, he loves what his money can do. It built Tony an armored suit. If the Donald wanted one, Tony could probably alter the helmet to accommodate the hair. But both of them always have to be careful that their overconfidence does not spell their and others’ ruin. Carly has zoomed to the top of the Republican polls, making me think of Janet van Dyne as the Wasp. Like Carly, the Wasp has executive experience. She led Earth’s mightiest team, the Avengers, although Janet’s tenure seemed to get more applause than Carly at HP. Too, despite her diminutive powers, the Wasp has been able to defeat far stronger foes, just as Carly might bring down the Donald. But her powers are just not that great. Not like the Hulk anyway. If any candidate might fill that big green-skinned bill, it’s gotta be Christie. It’s not that he’s the dumb Hulk, far from it. But just like the behemoth, Christie just seems to get more powerful when he gets mad. And just like the Hulk, you never know what’s going to be leveled by the rage. Unpredictable, but you want him on your side, until, at least, he gets too tired and needs to nap. In great contrast we have Jeb, the calm and calculating one. He reminds me of Reed Richards, the father figure of the Fantastic Four. Reed and Jeb both feel like leaders, and good in stressful situations. But to be able to stretch in whatever direction you need is not the most exciting kind of superhero; you want to have a Human Torch on your team to add a bit of pizzazz. And who might be Superman? Alas nobody. Remember, Superman is an immigrant, a refugee. He certainly can’t run for president for nobody can find his birth certificate. Trump might even call him an illegal. Maybe that should be a question in the next debate: should Superman be deported? And if so, how are you going to pay for it? Brexit, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity I wish to thank Svenja Kopyciok for exchanges that helped inform the empirical basis of this essay. Errors, and political implications, are my own responsibility. A shorter version of this is available here: http://www.queries-feps.eu/brexit-ubermensch-escapism-and-anglo-american-european-solidarity/ . Michael D. Kennedy September 5, 2015 Someday we ought to make a list of those great debates that serve as great distractions. Brexit offers no solution to the issues that plague the world, and would only make things worse. Every sensible and informed American would agree. The special relationship between our two countries would only sour on Brexit, unless America elects its own distraction. Of course one can find informed Americans who would celebrate the Brexit option. They are like-minded folks to UKIP and the Conservatives’ back-benchers who find freedom and sovereignty to be the principles that guide their policies, empirical conditions be damned. Nile Gardiner “PM+: Brexit is best for UK and US” The Parliament: Politics, Policy and People Magazine March 9, 2015 https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/blog/pm-brexit-best-uk-and-us They are drawn to leaders who assert that entanglement is a sign of weakness rather than a recognition of reality. Ideologies can bend the world to their vision if they are wielded by the sufficiently powerful, but the United Kingdom is not in that club. Indeed, that club is so exclusive today that no sensible nation belongs to it. The United States is the most powerful actor in the world, but even it is caught in webs of entanglement that make the kind of rhetoric underlying Brexit seem foolish. The US economic rebound depends on the soundness of China’s economy; addressing the crisis in Syria and Iraq depends on finding common ground with Russia, which is, of course, fundamental to addressing the refugee crisis overwhelming Europe; figuring a consequential climate change agenda requires a measure of coordination that makes ideologies based on sovereignty seem like schoolhouse bravado. The world is increasingly interdependent, and that is the empirical given every responsible political agent ought recognize. There is one agent in the world, however, who shows what schoolhouse bravado can yield. The advocates of Brexit should find inspiration in Putin’s approach to global relations. Putin shows what breaking the rules of the game can offer. Invading Crimea and conducting hybrid warfare within Ukrainian territory has been a way for Putin to put his foot down and declare that he did not like Ukraine’s embrace of Europe and the international rule of law and bureaucratic coordination it symbolizes. By so breaking expectations, Putin changed the dynamics of international alliances and even investments in the gas pipelines that fuel them. It remains to be seen whether the solidarity of Europe and North America can maintain sanctions on Russia sufficiently long for an alternative to Putin’s east European practice to emerge. Brexit will certainly won’t help. Back in the spring of 2015 Labour was chastised for suggesting that Brexit would boost Putin, http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/12/labour-ridiculed-for-saying-brexit-would-boost-putin/ but since that time experts from Europe http://news.sky.com/story/1508208/germany-beware-putins-push-for-brexit and the United States Judy Dempsy http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/05/11/cameron-brexit-and-russia/i8fe Moscow times have suggested that Putin could be one of the greatest beneficiaries of such a move. One might debate whether Putin and his forces are actually and actively supporting Brexit public diplomacy, but there is no doubt that Putinesque Russian positions in defining a new world order would be enhanced by a diminished European Union. NATO could even be affected; at least Britain’s role in NATO would be diminished on Brexit. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/07/02/would-brexit-spell-the-end-of-european-defence/ There are some who seek evidence of Putin’s influence-peddling among UKIP as has been found among other Euroskeptic parties. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putins-farright-ambition-thinktank-reveals-how-russian-president-is-wooing--and-funding--populist-parties-across-europe-to-gain-influence-in-the-eu-9883052.html Although I join Ed West in wondering why European leaders don’t mobilize more against Russian threats to define the European alternative, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/nigel-farage-isnt-the-biggest-threat-to-the-eurosceptic-cause-vladimir-putin-is/ I don’t think Putin’s embrace of conservatives and Euroskeptics is important to the debate about Brexit and its implications for the US/UK relationship. Nor do I think that what is good for Putin is bad for the US. But I do think it is manifestly clear that a strong European Union is good for the USA, especially in a time where Putin is rewriting the rules of the geopolitical game, and the West works to figure out its place in a world defined by a rising China. Nobody can argue that Brexit will increase the soundness of the European Union. Of course the advocates of Brexit don’t care about that soundness, and are putting the United Kingdom first. But in that assumption they presume that the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States will not only remain the same but become stronger given our historic ties and cultural affinities. They are flat wrong. The much noted tilt toward Asia undertaken by the Obama administration is based on an anticipation of the future. Changing weights in the world economy will mean a relative decrease in the European Union’s overall significance, and Brexit will only hasten that demise. But make no mistake either: should Brexit overwhelm good sense, the United Kingdom’s special relationship with the USA will be one of its casualties because the European Union’s significance will be far greater, in economic, diplomatic, and military terms, than Britain’s. In the end, there is no upside for the USA in Brexit. When President Obama declared his support for the UK remaining in the EU, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/593405/Barack-Obama-UK-EU-European-Union-David-Cameron he was, simply, being empirical. But Brexit is not based on realistic thinking, or even ideology. It may have been David Cameron’s calculation to increase his bargaining power in the EU’s internal reform, but its attraction rests, in the end, on emotion. It is Britain’s Trump. Trump, rather, is America’s Brexit. Donald Trump expresses the outrage many ordinary citizens across Europe and America feel at their authorities. Trump is an alternative to politics as usual, offering a kind of Übermensch giving the frustrated license to declare those with whom they disagree to be stupid, low energy, or incompetent. If only you had someone strong in power, someone who knew how to build skyscrapers, they could build the wall that will keep out the migrants who violate our rule of law and endanger our families and communities. Brexit and Trump are expressions of the same frustration: if only we could be independent of all those entanglements, we would be free to be rich and to be ourselves. I realize that David Cameron is no Trump, nor is he Putin. However, it is characteristic of those who pretend entanglements to be only restraints that they often get ahead of themselves in their attempt to redefine reality with the outrageous. Cameron has put himself in a conundrum from which he may not be able to escape without catastrophe for his party, and for his nation, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11637905/David-Camerons-presumptuousness-may-push-us-into-Brexit.html just as Putin has risked the whole of Russia with his recklessness, and Trump risks the Republican Party with his excesses. Übermensch escapism is the danger about which we ought to worry, not the European Union superstate of which Margaret Thatcher and her descendents like to focus our fears. Putin is its finest expression in the present, Brexit is its extension, and Trump’s surging popularity is its American agony. David Ignatius, “Is Donald Trump an American Putin?” Washington Post August 18, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-donald-trump-an-american-putin/2015/08/18/46c3dd38-45db-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html I fear that reality will not keep up with Übermensch escapism. I worry that the fantasies that Putin, Brexit and Trump represent will come to define our reality. And they will unless the fear that mobilizes support for Putin, Brexit and Trump is recognized and engaged. In the case of the latter two, migrants and refugees mobilize fear in incredibly destructive ways. Nigel Farange and UKIP, even before this latest crisis magnified by the reckless decisions of Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orban, were focusing on Britain’s asylum policy to whip up passions around Brexit. Donald Trump has done the same with suggestions that we need to deport all those who have settled in America illegally. I am confident that Trump’s approach moves the Republican Party to a position that makes it impossible for it to win the Hispanic vote, which in turn will make it impossible for Republicans to win the presidential election. Given the dynamics of the refugee crisis in Europe, however, I am not so confident about Brexit self-destructive position before it is too late. But there are grounds for hope. The shame European leaders must bear as refugees die on seas in capsized boats and in lorries locked from without is too much for the decent to bear. Those civil society organizations mobilizing to support the most vulnerable among us suggests an alternative political formation in the making that can inspire a different kind of solidarity that reanimates a Europe thought dead.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/world/europe/migrant-crisis-austria-hungary-germany.html?ref=world&_r=0. http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2015/09/06/accueil-inedit-pour-les-migrants-arrives-en-allemagne_4747308_3214.html https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/civil-society-steps-support-hungary-train-station-refugees Europe’s progressives need that kind of vision of an alternative that inspires, and not just satisfices. America experiences just that kind of revival in this moment. Even if Bernie Sanders does not win the nomination, the growing influence of the constituency he mobilizes in the Democratic Party means that the White House in 2016 will not be one that celebrates Brexit, or even the TTIP on the table, much less the a Free Trade Agreement only with the United Kingdom that benefits only the billionaires on both sides of the pond. Sanders is developing an alternative to a populism based on Übermensch, and rather one based on progressive policies that promise a real redistribution of power and privilege, and not a fiction of freedom for all. With a Democratic Party in power in the White House in 2017, whether that be Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley or Joe Biden, I can imagine an alignment between the US and the European Union based on solidarity and hope. But that will not be with Brexit. If nightmares come true, where Trump and Brexit define our futures, I may be returning to that old critical theory that could only find a flicker of hope in the world. I will be resenting that Putin who smiles at having been able to remake the world in his image. I would rather be working on a world of Anglo-American-European solidarity. And that depends on an exit from Brexit. Bernie Sanders is Captain America Michael D. Kennedy, Jane Goodman and Steven Goodman Michael D. Kennedy is a cultural political sociologist at Brown University, author of Globalizing Knowledge (2015). He is writing a book provisionally entitled Superhero Sociology. Jane Goodman and Steve Goodman lived in Burlington, VT for 40 years and have been Bernie’s supporters throughout his political career. August 1, 2015 We doubt Bernie Sanders or Captain America would recognize himself in the other, but the greatest power of each is the same. Of course we can’t quite imagine Bernie dressed in the Star-Spangled Avenger’s costume. Nor does Bernie have the physique that we see in the comic book pages or in the Marvel films, when Chris Evans dons the uniform. And yes, we know Captain America is a fictional character and his choice is limited by what his creators and copyright holders offer. His fans also have a say – they would never allow Captain America, for example, to be associated with the Donald. So what on earth allows us to imagine Bernie as Captain America? Captain America’s greatest superpower is his integrity. Yes, he has a super soldier serum coursing through his veins, but as philosopher Mark D. White points out, his ultimate strength rests in the combination of courage, humility, righteous indignation, responsibility and perseverance animating his virtue. How is Bernie virtuous in these superheroic terms? Whatever one thinks about Bernie’s politics, nobody would ever accuse him of lacking profiles in courage. His willingness to stand up to the big money ruining American democracy puts him in Captain America’s league. Perseverance easily comes to mind too. He has been struggling for the same kinds of justice across his active political life. While the WWII Captain America took a break, being frozen in ice until he came back to the comic book world in 1964, Bernie hasn’t stopped moving justice for some half a century. Humility and responsibility go together when we think about Bernie. It’s clear that Bernie’s political commitments are never about Bernie’s success, but about how he might contribute to the greater good. Similarly, Captain America disliked celebrity in his comic book days, and preferred to celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of the common soldier. Righteous indignation is no obvious virtue, but you can see it readily in both Cap and Bernie. Neither can countenance injustice, and their anger is sometimes apparent even as both work hard to keep it in check. Their judgment wins out, seeing the long-run struggle as more important than an easy sound byte. They also have their weakness. Both Cap and Bernie are completely dedicated to their cause, and hard on themselves and those around them when they don’t live up to standards no normal human can keep. But that’s why we have superheroes: to remind us of what we ought to be, and perhaps, why we ought to join their team. Superheroes need to be tempered by humanity, while normal folks need inspiration to realize a world fundamentally better than the one we have. A Comparative and Historical Sociology of Alternative Futures Prepared for the WebForum in association with http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-futures-we-want/ Michael D. Kennedy May 29, 2015 Markus S. Schulz invites us to develop a sociology of the futures we want. http://www.isa-sociology.org/forum-2016/. That’s appealing to me on its own terms, but also because it is a meaningful extension of themes animating Globalizing Knowledge (2015) http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24607. There, I ask how we might develop a knowledge cultural sociology that mobilizes intellectuals’ institutions and networks to engage issues in a more globally responsible fashion. I conclude the volume by reviewing various approaches to systemic crisis and subjectivity’s reconstruction in anticipation of more desirable futures. Rather than rehearse points made in that book, I shall extend Globalizing Knowledge in dialogue with three different volumes I have read after completing my own. They invite me to rethink global history, global futures, and transformative practices in ways that inspire a different kind of comparative and historical sociology of alternative futures, and one that could put the sociology of the futures we want at the core of our discipline. Of course my essay’s title is meant to be paradoxical, but on reflection it should be obvious that there are affinities between our sense of the future and the methods we use. It is easy, of course, to imagine theories animated with prime drivers having teleological anchors. For those concerned with alternative futures, comparative and historical sensibilities seem obvious. I myself find the greatest affinities of such a sociology with the kind of comparative and historical sociology exemplified by Bill Sewell http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo3533904.html. Drawing on the “Sewellian list” (Kennedy 2015:22), emphasizing the multiplicity of structure, unpredictability of resource accumulation, intersection of structures, polysemy of resources, and transposability of schemas, I suggest different ways in which we might articulate historical transformations with alternative futures. I also insist that we be more mindful of where and how we look at the world in these sociologies. Nevertheless, in that volume I am not explicit about the global sociology in which I situate my work. Global Sociology and Systems Those who know my lineage might assume that I draw on the most macrosociological approach I know – the ecological-evolutionary theory of Gerhard Lenski. And indeed, I have sought to establish his linkage with critical traditions in sociology, Michael D. Kennedy “Evolution and Event in History and Social Change: Gerhard Lenski’s Critical Theory” Sociological Theory 22:2(2004): 315-27. but Michael Mann’s oeuvre offers even more recently an ideal interlocutor for the value and challenge of global sociology when thinking about alternative futures, especially now that he has reached the 21st century http://www.cambridge.org/US/academic/subjects/sociology/social-theory/sources-social-power-volume-4 In contrast to Lenski, for whom technological innovation is both empirically and theoretically the prime driver, Mann (2012:423-32) explicitly rejects that kind of argumentation given the interactive qualities of his four non-equivalent and non-congruent forms of power: economic, military, ideological, and economic. And while he might celebrate Marx’s ambition, he ultimately embraces Weber’s historicity, Consider Mann’s response to John A. Hall around his relationship to Marxist and Weberian traditions (pp. 169-76 in http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=9780745653228). an affinity I share if not only by theoretical inclination, but also from recent world historical developments. I suggested Lenski could be open to eventfulness but does not theorize it in the same ways Sewell can. But we need that kind of eventful thinking more than ever as we try to figure, for example, what Putin’s invasion of Crimea means for more than Russia and Ukraine. Mann’s framework would allow for us to take up that event, and invites us to consider the ways in which his four sources of social power mix it up in its analysis. However, it’s exceptionally difficult to determine, on the basis of the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s unconventional war on Ukraine, how we might move beyond ideology itself. After all, explaining its drivers, and its alternative futures, immediately sucks us up into the intellectual extensions of the information war itself. I have discussed the challenge of intellectual responsibility around Ukraine in my lecture at American University, whose elaboration is here: https://www.academia.edu/10282109/Extensions_of_Globalizing_Knowledge Even beyond this implication, the global disposition explaining sources of social power from without and above is, itself, undertheorized and can be problematic. Mann appropriately devotes much of his fourth volume to addressing the form of American empire in the world. I find much inspiration, but that kind of global view can erase the qualities of struggles, especially when contemporary, in less privileged places from our view of alternative futures. Indeed, it could even make us disinterested in what Ukrainians want, and focus only on what Americans, other Europeans, and Russians wish, and what powers they have to realize those wishes. When we think, then, of a sociology of the futures we wish to see, it’s critical for us to recognize which voices get heard and translated into the anticipation of alternatives. That’s hard to figure, and something I began in Globalizing Knowledge. But one might also choose a theoretical lens that appears to escape that problem. Saskia Sassen’s (2014) http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674599222 emphasis on accumulation through expulsion rather than through incorporation I reviewed it here: (2015) “Centering the Edge in the Shift from Inequality to Expulsion” Contemporary Sociology 44:1(11-14) shifts the lens enough for me to worry less about the representation of variably recognized peoples in the articulation of global futures. With her framework, we think less about how any particular struggle shapes the terms for global futures, and rather more on how articulating different expulsions – of peoples (of the poor and of their health, for example) and of things (of proximate environments and global atmospheres, for example) – enables us to recognize an emergent system distinct from the one that has formed our sociology. Instead of analyzing inequalities within systems or societies, we ought recognize those expelled from systemic accounting. With Sassen’s shift, our sociology is less one of extending lessons learned in one place to characterizations of the system as a whole. It becomes more about reconstructing what that system’s emergent logic is by knitting together expulsions of all sorts typically studied within their own knowledge niches. We might even work to articulate them in something more than academic terms. Sassen offers no guidelines to practice here, but she does leave open the door for it. She suggests that the system is not necessarily self-destructive, but what might make it sustainable is another systemic question. In order to develop the sociology of futures we want, of a system that does not destroy humanity and the world that sustains it, we need to figure how systems can be otherwise. But for that, we need to move away from structures. And here, the Japanese Tea Ceremony might be surprisingly instructive. Global Sociology and Practice Kristin Surat’s Making Tea, Making Japan http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=20929 most evidently concerns the practice of nationalism, but it is also something more. Surat’s analysis of the tea ceremony suggests something new about cultural power. The tea ceremony has somehow survived radical transformations of Japanese national expression while at the same time ensuring a sense of continuousness that phases of isolation, westernization, imperialism, postwar defeat/recovery, and democratic and peaceful internationalism would seem to deny. There is something about this tea ceremony that is remarkably resilient, on the one hand, and generative, on the other. It is resilient because it is reproduced over time. Yes, the experts and principal practitioners may shift from upper class men to housewives, and it may articulate very differently with various kinds of power, from militarists to commercial houses. It remains recognizably the same in practice over time, but it is more than resilient. It is generative. Tea ceremony practitioners are able to use this ceremony to express a kind of power that is not just about the manipulation of force or the distribution of resources. It expresses, in that Durkheimian sense, a kind of collective effervescence that is not only in the moment of ritual, but present in the anticipation of its performance, in the immaterial residues left on its artifacts, in the contemporary aura of its historical endurance. In a seminar at Brown University, Surak explained that resilience and generativity of practice in terms of the contradictions that the tea ceremony embodies. It is distinctively Japanese, and yet it is universal. It is remarkably dependent on certain concrete settings and material artifacts, and yet it transcends the material world. It is heavily scripted, but it depends on a measure of improvised interaction in which much is unpredictable. It is, in short, a performance dripping in feelings of authenticity and yet unreal given the world in which we live. It is not so obviously anticipating a global future we wish, however. Universities could. Although I celebrate knowledge networks in Globalizing Knowledge as the most agile and immediate in addressing the futures we want, their nodes necessarily involve universities. They appear to function in ways that appear to be mostly about the reproduction of their status, or the search to climb the ladders of recognition. But I wonder whether we might not recognize in these knowledge institutions contradictions that not only debilitate our higher purpose, but represent the resilience and generativity Surak identifies in the tea ceremony. A Global Sociology of the Future I Wish to See Part of the future I wish to see are universities that are not only simultaneously dedicated to public engagement and basic research, but figuring their fusion in ways that enhance the likelihood that we develop the global futures we want. One sees this readily in environmental hubs, less so in international studies where the distinction of “practitioners” and “scholars” reproduces the problem. Why? The notion of practice already presumes identification with constituencies of power and/or professions of convention while scholars rarely develop the reflexivity that justifies their position vis-à-vis various powers that be. This allocation of knowledgeable labor won’t help us realize the futures we wish to see. We need a new model of engaged scholarship that could take inspiration from the practitioner/authors I mention above. Our sociology of the futures we wish to see needs to develop a sense of emergence in Sassen’s sense, a feel for global powers and transformations that Mann exemplifies, and the attention to unrecognized practice that Surak’s study illuminates. If I might suggest based on my own work, it also demands a cultivation of intellectual responsibility that makes us recognize the importance of global priorities, collaborative learning, and public engagement. To be in conversation around these volumes would build in my present the future I wish to see. “Negotiating Revolution from Poland to Hong Kong?” Michael D. Kennedy December 11, 2014 As the 33rd anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland approaches, many colleagues in Hong Kong are asking what the lessons of Eastern Europe’s Revolutions of 1989 might hold for the future of the Umbrella Revolution. Poland was the first of the East European communist regimes to fall. The leaders of the revolution, most notably in the Solidarity movement, were dedicated to the struggle for truthfulness.  They were united in opposition to the systematic and systemic lie that communist authorities in Europe had perpetrated. Of course, there were some communist authorities dedicated to truthfulness, hence the recurring efforts to reform a system that was not working as well as it claimed. But Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and others also saw the deeper problem: one cannot change a system without having the freedom to talk openly about the problems of the system. And an open dialogue is difficult without respect for one another. Dignity, in the end, is the foundation for dialogue. In 1989, leaders of the communist party and leaders of the opposition organized around Lech Walesa and Solidarity came together to negotiate a reform to change the Soviet-enforced system. They knew one another, and knew that together they had to find a way out.  And they did so with partial reforms that eventually led to real transformation. The image of the Berlin Wall collapsing is the wrong symbol for imagining 1989.  The system did not simply collapse.  A more appropriate image is that of the round table, where Poles negotiated an exit from a dysfunctional and untruthful system.  They negotiated revolution. How was this a revolution? It was not violent, and many who were privileged in the old system found a good life in the new one. They used their political capital to acquire economic capital.  To some, this conversion is morally objectionable. But if it was the price of a non-violent but radical transformation of the old order, it is a meaningful and useful compromise. This was, in the words of the analysts of the time, a revolution against the revolutionary tradition.  And thus, it needs to be understood in its own terms.  But it also bears consideration for the future. Poland's trajectory has been the most successful of those leaving communist rule. An essential asset in that change was a civil society willing to accept compromise in the name of gradual progress.  Another asset was a ruling group willing to recognize that its historic role was not to defend its power and privilege at all costs, but together with the opposition, to figure out a transformation for the common good. For those in Hong Kong struggling today to improve their world, the history of Poland ending dictatorship is critical, and its lessons many.  One cannot understand success or failure in the moment of struggle. To many, the imposition of martial law in Poland on December 13, 1981, was a defeat. But in retrospect, it was the foundation for the negotiated revolution that came less than a decade later.  Everyone sympathetic to the Solidarity movement in 1980-81 knew they were living on the edge, anticipating crackdown. And yet, when martial law was declared, the Poles were not prepared for what it would mean. Only a few leaders escaped capture. On that day, some thought the movement had been crushed. That turned out to be an illusion. Solidarity had developed strengths that prevented its simple defeat.  Poland's leader, Wojciech Jaruzelski, thought he could break Solidarity through a combination of force and new forms of consultation and compromise.  But by imposing martial law, he profoundly alienated a substantial segment of Polish society.    Martial law, in this sense, made it impossible for Jaruzelski to dictate resolution. It even made a negotiated settlement risky for the communists, for the stakes of negotiation, when it finally came, kept rising.  After the violence of martial law, negotiation demanded far more significant change. The lesson? When a movement has developed as substantially as Solidarity had — or, as Hong Kong appears to have — it cannot be crushed by force.  Instead, the choice becomes when to negotiate. As in 1989, negotiation following repression is more likely to lead to negotiated revolution.  Negotiation before repression is likely to lead to negotiated settlement. Right now, Hong Kong is on the edge of this decision. If the authorities negotiate a meaningful compromise with the protesters tomorrow, they will not have to face a far more substantial set of demands in the years to come.   Those who fail to recognize the importance of dialogue and compromise fail to recognize the lessons of history.  The patience and ingenuity of those that struggle in Hong Kong for truthfulness and for justice is admirable.  It seems to resemble Poland’s struggles in 1989. The critical question is whether the reigning authorities in Hong Kong and China can demonstrate a wisdom similar to that which led to non-violent and meaningful change in Poland.    Michael D. Kennedy is professor of sociology and international studies at Brown University.  He is the author, most recently, of Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation. “Engaging Intellectuals and Politicians” Michael D. Kennedy November 21, 2014 When the eminent French sociologist Michel Wieviorka joined our November 2014 meeting of the Next Left in Santiago http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/4cb1fead-e521-42b2-bc63-b343bebccc97/2014-11-19-feps-next-left-programme-chile-finalpdf.pdf , he rearticulated an enduring concern: how can we extend the engagement between intellectuals and politicians, between collective actions and institutional expressions, between the instrumentalities of politics and the complexities academics favor. I agree, but we don’t always look in the right places. The gulf between theory and practice is not hard to find, of course. Politicians lament the complex phrases academics use; students demand rights that the institutionally embedded say universities can’t afford. And we can see the effects of these gaps when those in authority decry populism of left and right, and those in opposition express only alienation from those who rule. But we also need to find instances where theory and practice blend. And that is why Santiago is such a powerful place. In my book, Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation ( http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24607), I rework familiar notions of intellectuals and their responsibilities. In Chile, this is especially critical, and evidently important in many different ways. It’s most dramatically apparent in the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, Founded in 2010, this museum is dedicated to recognizing the violations of human rights the Pinochet dictatorship committed during 1973-1990, and to mobilize reflection on those crimes so that such injustice cannot be repeated within Chile and across the world. http://www.museodelamemoria.cl/ I view this institutional articulation of moral responsibility as a profoundly intellectual, and political, expression. In a way, this and other museums retelling the histories of crimes against humanity reiterate the sense of intellectuals in opposition, of the importance of speaking truth to power, even if that power is now overthrown. But this museum, at least, is more than that too. Intellectuals with institutional authority moved its creation as well as making other social and political mechanisms to bring truth to a nation deeply wounded by injustice. This is a ready example of how intellectuals might use power truthfully. To consider how to use power truthfully is a critical question not only for the articulation of past crimes but also for the exercise of institutional responsibility in the present and in the construction of alternative futures. Intellectuals assume institutional responsibility in many circumstances, from their obvious roles as leaders of universities to the more occasional role as presidents of nations. In Globalizing Knowledge, I consider qualities of intellectuality among three very different political leaders – the late Vaclav Havel, the new president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani, and Ricardo Lagos, Chile’s president between 2000 and 2006. To spend time with Lagos in Santiago in November 2014 helped me appreciate, once again, how intellectuals with institutional responsibility and cultural authority might narrow the gap between theory and practice. I am neither from Chile nor an expert in its history or culture. I come from the USA and have spent most of my academic life working to understand the struggle against communist rule, and its legacies, in Poland and other places with analogous trajectories. But when I became vice provost for international affairs at the University of Michigan in 1999, I could not remain in my familiar terrains if I was to do my job properly. I ranged across knowledge cultures and regional referents. I found my way by considering the public consequence of scholarship across the world. In my book, I reflected on President Lagos’s example for our world, but his exercise of post-presidential, and local, responsibilities has struck me most during my time with him in Santiago. While in our conference his ideas about the importance of multilateral institutions and international rules in the protection of small nations resonated most readily with me as a sociologist in international studies, it was the work of his foundation http://www.fdd.cl/ in the elaboration of communicative rationality and political value that most inspired me as some who is, of course, also a citizen in a particular place. I recall during President Lagos’s time at Brown University his increasing interest in the significance of that shift from the one way communication of radio and television to the interactivity of social media. And upon my arrival in Chile, I learn of his creation of what he calls “The Fifth Power” http://www.elquintopoder.cl/. Among its functions is the distribution of an app to people in Santiago’s urban districts, where they can report directly to their local government problems they see on their streets. This is more than interactivity between a single citizen and their representative; this also creates a neighborhood or collective effect, making those on line with the complainant also aware of the issue and the struggle to fix it. This initiative creates various local publics that suture citizens and political leaders, rearticulating theory and practice, connecting intellectuals and publics. Clearing the streets of garbage or fixing damaged traffic lights is not the same as redirecting climate change, of course. Too, local issues may not be so complex as negotiating international trade agreements. But this is an example of where those with institutional power can exercise intellectual responsibility to figure ways to bring truthfulness to public effect. And to extend its point. President Lagos would be the last person to find in digital activism as solution to every problem the world faces. But I find in this example one answer to Michel Wieviorka’s questions. As Michel, I also seek fora where intellectuals and political figures can find meaningful common ground. But I also find that fusion to exist when we can see in political figures the exercise of intellectual responsibility. Not all politicians have this inclination, nor are they all so equally able. But where they are, we should recognize it. And where they fail to blend intellectual and institutional responsibility, we need to mark that gap, and find ways to reduce that distance. During this time in Chile, I found many reasons to believe that this is a struggle worth continuing, and one that can move social change for the public good. Universities can be at the center of not only speaking truth to power, but of using their institutional power truthfully. Rethinking the Social Question Where is Class in Trade, and Where Does Latin America Belong? by MICHAEL D. KENNEDY On November 20-21, 2014, politicians and academics from the world over assembled in Santiago to rethink the “social question” in global terms (http://www.fundacionsalvadorallende.cl/2014/11/gran-jornada-de-debates-en-seminario-%E2%80%9Cnext-left-una-respuesta-progresista-a-la-cuestion-social%E2%80%9D/). Social reformers and socialists have debated how to address social rights and inequalities for well over a century, but typically within the nation. Globalization demands that we think increasingly about how to engage class formations across nations. The gathering in Santiago brought progressives from the U.S., Europe, Africa and Latin America together to discuss and analyze how class articulates international organizations and global flows. Trade agreements moved to the center of debate. The “Next Left” knowledge network (http://www.feps-europe.eu/en/projects-next-left) Funded by the European Union’s Foundation for European Progressive Studies and affiliated with the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament had already organized an October meeting in Washington to debate with Americans the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The Party of European Socialists needs to figure its place in that proposal for increasing trade and harmonizing regulations between the US and the EU. Its support, or opposition, will determine the agreement’s fate within the European Parliament. Some socialists have supported that agreement, believing that increasing ties across the world is, intrinsically, progressive. Many socialists are troubled by the ways in which the proposed agreement looks to elevate corporate citizenship above real citizens, and corporate rules above democracy’s law, however. Alfred Gusenbauer, Austria’s former chancellor, was especially emphatic about withholding socialist support for the agreement. That led most in that gathering to conclude that progressive support depends, first, on eliminating the symbol of corporate class power, the Investor Dispute Settlement Mechanism (ISDS), from the agreement before other issues are even addressed. Beyond class, however, this agreement signals another transnational social question with geopolitical effect. Where is Latin America in TTIP? This question, posed in the Santiago gathering by Chile’s former president, Ricardo Lagos is obviously not about his Pacific rim country. But no Latin American country, whether it borders the Atlantic or otherwise, has been invited to the TTIP negotiating table. Why? And perhaps even more importantly, so what? This exclusion marks a more systematic feature of the trade agreements proliferating in the wake of failed multilateral efforts. Growing powers of the global economy, most notably China, India, and Brazil, are not part of TTIP or its Pacific Rim kin, the Trans Pacific Partnership. Trade experts debate the likely impact of TTIP and TPP on the world economy, and on the national economies included and excluded in these partnerships. For the Santiago assembly, this was more than an economic question, however. It is, again, a question of who is writing the rules of the emerging global order, and whether trade agreements are the proper forum for restructuring global governance. Ireland’s former Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore, was especially emphatic on the importance of reforming international institutions so that they might represent the whole world better, and less its concentrations of power. The leader of Chile’s Diplomatic Academy, Juan Somavía put a concrete proposal on the table in that spirit. The United Nations would be more representative of its constituent member-nations without the veto power of the Security Council. Certainly the prospect of ending that practice is utopian given the power of already constituted interests, but Somavía asked whether the Council might not be convinced to eliminate its right to veto in the selection of the next US Secretary General. To debate whether TTIP extends corporate power at the expense of the working class, and how the United Nations might be transformed, appear to be questions worlds apart. They are not, however, when knowledge networks cross hemispheres. Globalizing knowledge typically means shifting domain assumptions and analytical frames. Europeans and Americans might debate the contents of trade agreements, but when the discussion moves south, the question of class in trade must be supplemented with the question of national prerogatives in global futures. Globalizing knowledge in practice, however, means more than having expertise on trade, class and global governance in the room. In order for that debate to carry consequence, it requires that basic questions academics pose find receptive ears among politicians who legislate the rules but have little time for much beyond immediate and lobbied concerns. It requires that we have political figures like Ricardo Lagos and Alfred Gusenbauer who understand the mechanisms of everyday governance but also can think beyond its needs to anticipate, and help structure, global futures. Knowledge networks are increasingly effective at mobilizing intellectuals across generations and continents, but the next step requires that we figure ways to extend their direct engagement with the international institutions and agreements that are the objects of their analysis. This Next Left in Santiago was just that expression, an articulation of intellectual responsibility before a world in crisis and transformation. Rethinking Catastrophe in Ukraine A Commentary based on presentations and discussion with Mychailo Wynnyckyj, Dominique Arel, and Margarita Balmaceda at http://watson.brown.edu/events/2014/defining-ukraine-domestic-politics-shadow-catastrophe April 18, 2014 1:00 pm Michael D. Kennedy Catastrophes are made not only by natural disasters, systemic contradictions, and evil intentions. They are made even worse by the failture to recognize the right way to mobilize concern and resources. In the catastrophe growing in Ukraine, four glaring mistakes are currently guiding thought and action. 1. The hard distinction between domestic and international politics must be replaced with a focus on forms of global influence on local decision making. Terrific emphasis is properly placed on the ways in which Russia has been infiltrating Ukraine with its own special forces, political tourists, and “men dressed in athletic garb;” Russian news talks much about the visit by CIA director John Brennan to Kyiv on April 12. But sovereignty does not mean impermeable borders and isolation. Only big powers like the US and Russia can pretend to their publics that they are sovereign in their decisions. Instead, we should ask how foreign powers influence a nation’s decision making, and then distinguish invitation and advice from bribery and armed intervention. Categorical differences between these forms of foreign influence should not be made equivalent in politics. Russia is playing by the latter rules, and the West by the former. Too many fail to recognize the world Russia promises to make with its example. 2. The revolution associated with Euromaidan deserves recognition, but it cannot be the lens through which those beyond Euromaidan’s politics are viewed. Much like the Solidarity movement of 1980-81 in Poland, the months of largely non-violent protest in Kyiv’s Independence Square was a historical movement promising a better world. I admire that Euromaidan. But I also believe that governance based on its embrace, especially when so many in the east and south of Ukraine have come to define themselves against that revolution, is a mistake. Instead we need a new politics based on an engagement with Ukrainian citizens who feel distant from Euromaidan’s promise. Further, the Ukrainian east must be rethought, with the courageous and loyal Ukrainian leaders in Dnipropetrovsk replacing those of dysfunctional Donetsk in our imagination of that east. In times of crisis, new visions of the Ukrainian nation must be forged without the justified righteousness of a revolution grounded in dignity. 3. Dignifying crude power politics with legal fictions diminishes an already precarious rule of law in international affairs. Few powers in the world have endorsed Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, but that does not matter to Putin. Part of his project is to rewrite the rules of the game, even while he pretends to follow them. The referendum in Crimea is the grossest example of this Putinesque manipulation. I worry ever more about the status of law for all (and the rights of indigenous peoples in particular - in this instance Crimean Tatars) - in the emerging world order. I worry about the old world order, too, when I see the Geneva negotiations produce a document that insists all irregular militias disarm, and all spaces illegally occupied be evacuated. The elephant in the room, the occupation of Crimea, cannot be imagined in this compromise because Putin has already declared the legality of its annexation. Diplomatic niceties when one actor plays crude power politics drag the lawfully minded into a pit of their own decline. 4. Ultimately, to understand the Ukrainian catastrophe we need to understand Putin’s project, and not assume we can manage it. With Ukraine, we need to defeat it. Lilia Shevtsova is right: Putin is playing a deadly game of chance, disrupting old rules with hopes to extend his life in office. And as he extends that term, he is destroying the peace and security of Europe, and perhaps the world. http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/04/14/the-putin-doctrine-myth-provocation-blackmail-or-the-real-deal/ Many justifiably worry that military confrontation with him could start World War III. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605578/Edward-Lucas-I-hope-Im-wrong-historians-look-say-start-World-War-III.html But he has already developed a new kind of warfare that, if not stopped, will generate unconventional warfare in the heart of Europe that can easily spread and wreck the world polity and economy. As Russia continues its incursion into mainland Ukraine, Ukrainians will not sit by and look for new compromise. Many Ukrainians find their virtue in deeds that denote courage and honor and that, in the long run, disrupt economies and polities further. Those irregular forces will not give up their weapons, and I can’t blame them – at least not until Ukraine has better security guarantees than that 1994 Budapest Memorandum that Russia violated when it invaded Ukraine. As Ukrainians resist, Russians will advance, and as they advance, they will not stop at Ukraine. They will move to Moldova. And they just may take on NATO by invading Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Why not? They could find Russians there, or they could send Russians there to carry out the same war that they already executed in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine. And then NATO will have to decide, together, whether defending their alliance is more valuable than Europeans preserving their economic ties with Russia. And it’s not obvious to me what that choice will be. Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. “Putin’s Vision” Global Post (forthcoming) And that’s a step toward even greater disaster. Ukraine cannot defend itself alone against a Russian invasion that has already begun. It is time for the West to decide whether it can see itself in Ukraine’s revolution of dignity and its fate in Ukraine’s future. I can. But given the way in which Putin continues to outplay the West in war that is not war, and in negotiations that are not negotiations, a future based on the smooth extension of the present only offers the world historic tragedy. This Is Not a New Cold War: Engaging Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy March 12, 2014 12:03 AM EST When we face global transformations for which we are neither politically nor intellectually prepared, we typically reach for historical examples to give the illusion of understanding. And so it is today. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is not Cold War II. This is Not Cold War First, the West feared the ideological foundations of communism, evident in the paranoia featured in red scares of all sorts. Putin has no ideological adherents beyond Russia beyond those who see anyone opposing the US and the EU as an inevitable ally. The ideology associated with simple anti-Westernism is reactionary, and without the promise of the radiant future communism promised. Second, the most powerful opponents of Western reaction to Putin’s invasion of Crimea are those in the West who fear instability more than they fear injustice and illegality. Putin has dealt them the cards in their deck, and they are willing to accept the rules of the game he has defined because they fear, reasonably, an escalation that will be too costly for the West (e.g. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/leslie-h-gelb-cut-the-baloney-on-ukraine.html) For this group, at least Crimea, and perhaps even the Ukrainians and their Maidan Revolution, are a casualty of a war already lost. Those who wish to accommodate Putin’s invasion have their purest and most principled allies on both the far left and far right. The far left says no to all state violence and reaction, and while the Russian invasion might be resisted best by a revolution in Russia, it is not to be contested by NATO or the West https://www.academia.edu/6312878/I_hate_On_war_in_Ukraine#1 http://avtonomia.net/2014/03/03/statement-left-anarchist-organizations-borotba-organization/ The far right also rejects solidarity with Ukraine. At least the British nationalists do, and have argued that this is not their fight http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march052014/brits-ukraine.php Most Americans, according to the latest Pew Poll agree with those nationalists: http://www.people-press.org/2014/03/11/most-say-u-s-should-not-get-too-involved-in-ukraine-situation/ Most of my academic colleagues expert in Russia and Ukraine agree that Putin’s invasion is best left unchallenged too. Scholars recently have signed an open letter with the following 5 points: 1) Russian occupation of Ukraine should cease; 2) any referendum under occupation in Crimea is illegitimate; 3) more substantial elections across the whole of Ukraine should take place as soon as possible; 4) Ukraine should become more inclusive and decentralized; and 5) deescalate the rhetoric; no militarism in speech, for that could provoke war (http://alliruk.livejournal.com/687418.html) Though many colleagues and friends signed this letter, I could not. I join them in wanting to avoid bloodshed, but I disagree with most of them, and with many other experts on Russia, who believe that Russia is justified in its fear of Maidan and its geopolitical implications. The extension of NATO to Russian borders along the Baltic states, was too much. To offer a NATO bridge across Ukraine entirely unacceptable. And for them, geopolitical Realpolitik trumps Ukrainian wishes and Putin’s criminality. That is a conservatism I cannot abide when it depends on accepting a reality founded on profound lies. Truth and Lies in Debating Invasion It’s not just the pundits who talk about Cold War II. Putin also knows how to invoke false historical analogies. He has provoked reasonable fears of those who lived, or whose parents lived, through World War II and Soviet times. The fight against fascism was one thing that legitimated the USSR as virtuous. That the Soviets managed to present themselves as a leader in the struggle against the Holocaust enables Putin as the heir apparent to Soviet rule to claim that anti-Semitism is on the rise again with the increasing prominence of those who revere Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian whose role in the 1930s and 1940s put him in league with Nazis invading the Soviet Union (after the 1939-41 alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany ended that is). We are right to be concerned about the far right’s place, but we are more right to be concerned about the spread of violence. That is why I agree with the negotiations concluded on February 20, 2014 between Yanukovych and the political opposition from Maidan: private militias must be taken off the streets. Certainly Putin uses this capacity of the Right Sector among others to justify his invasion. Many Ukrainians, however, see those wielding not just Molotov Cocktails but also small firearms as heroes of the revolution, after the martyrs who laid down their lives for the defense of the ideals of democracy and dignity lived on Maidan. And they are now more than fully justified to remain mobilized and armed when Putin brings more violence to Ukraine than anyone in the country ever experienced in these years of independence, more than anything they could have ever imagined. Indeed, when my colleagues and I conducted research in the mid 1990s in Estonia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine about how to evaluate changes over the last decade, Ukraine was split over the value of leaving Russia. But on one thing people could agree, whether from Donetsk, Kyiv, or Lviv: they were happy to have left Russia for Russia goes to war too readily. They were happy to live in a Ukraine that prioritized social peace, where their sons and daughters would not be killed in war (pp. 220-21 in http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/cultural-formations-of-postcommunism) That normal and decent value and expectation has, of course, been ruined by Putin’s invasion. So, if we are to return to the negotiated settlement of February 20, 2014, it must begin not with the confiscation of the Right Sector’s weapons, but the removal of Putin and his forces from Ukraine’s sovereign territory. Is this just another hypocritical American demand? Some justify Putin’s action by saying that the West is just as bad. We all know Putin is lying for his justifications of invasion; even The Moscow Times acknowledges this. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/top-5-myths-about-russias-invasion-of-crimea/495918.html The West is worse, for these critics, because it is more powerful and because it is less duplicitous and more hypocritical for its lies (http://aje.me/1e9gtGO). But here’s the difference, and this is more than liberal ideology. We can challenge a warfaring state, one that goes beyond the rule of law. Look, after all, at the contest between the Senate and the CIA, out and open in the public sphere. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/cia-accused-of-illegally-searching-computers-used-by-senate-committee.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0) That might be consequential for how security and surveillance ultimately dominate our lives in America. Look at what Putin did with those who protested the invasion of Crimea. Protest is snuffed, there is no balance of powers. All depends on Putin and his reality. Still, the analysts have a point. The West and the Ukrainians played into what one critic calls “Putin’s grubby little hands” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-west-hot-air-hypocrisy-crimea-russia That’s why we need a better understanding of the Putin Power Elite. One of the best analysts of this is Lilia Shevtsova. Putin’s Reality and Power Elite She argues properly that the West does not get it. Putin’s ambition is to recreate an alternative center of the world, one in which Russia serves as the spiritual, political, and economic core. With that sacred place, Russia is not only allowed, but it is obliged to protect its people, broadly understood and well beyond citizenship, from any forces that threaten them. And even if they do not threaten, as the Ukrainian Revolution did not, Putin can manufacture the threat to justify the invasion. We cannot know where this ambition to recast the post-Cold War order will stop. But we know that Maidan, as principle and as practice, is a threat to Putin that must be stopped. I have said it before, but it’s even more obvious to me after reading Shevtsova: Euromaidan, or more properly Maidan now, was more threatening to Putin than any sanctions the West might offer. If Ukraine could develop a democratic state and society governed by the rule of law, why shouldn’t Russia? If Ukraine could celebrate truth in the struggle against corruption, why shouldn’t Russia reject not only well crafted lies, but the blatant ones too that legitimate the invasion by Russia of Ukraine? Most of my colleagues expert in Russia look for the escape valves from crisis Shevtsova marks, but also declares irrelevant. Putin does not, she says, seek an escape from this crisis. He rather aspires to weaken the West even further so that its guarantees of security are worth less than the paper on which they are written. If that is the logic and direction of the Putin regime, does dialogue, does negotiation, does understanding “Russia’s point of view” makes sense? Or does figuring real costs to the Putin invasion become imperative? Those who recall Hitler’s methods clearly see the imperative. Poles and Lithuanians lead in this sensitivity, not only for their historical memory but also for their real vulnerability. Beneath the confidence of Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski’s interview with BBC lies a reasonable anxiety: does the West have enough solidarity to present a strong challenge to Russia’s new imperialism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuWHEU9dVY&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop … To compare Putin with Hitler is, apparently controversial, and in the spirit of this article, misplaced. Putin is no Hitler. He will not orchestrate death camps. But some justifiably wonder whether he might force the mass movements of peoples as Stalin did. The global public is becoming more aware of the terrible suffering the Crimean Tatars endured during World War II, although their calamity was not labeled Holocaust. Stalin forcibly moved in 1944 nearly 200,000 Tatars, mostly women and children, from their homes in Crimea. Crimean Tatars themselves recall this forced movement to Soviet Central Asia as their own genocide, with nearly half of their total population killed (http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/krimtatars.html). And their removal opened Crimea for immigration of others. Over the late 1980s Crimean Tatars began to return to their homeland on a larger scale, struggling to rebuild their lives in lands where past properties were confiscated and their memories erased. (for a beautiful essay, see http://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/contents/no_other_home) Nevertheless, especially over the years of Ukrainian independence, the Crimean Tatars regained a place in their homeland, and even seats in parliament, including the well known Soviet dissident Mustafa Cemilev and Refat Chubarov, the two leaders of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis for these last two decades. Both Cemilev and Chubarov have publicly condemned Putin’s invasion of Russia, and declared the upcoming referendum on the future of Crimea illegitimate. http://uacrisis.org/mustafa-cemilev/ Would Putin’s declared wish to defend the world from fascism and its systematic anti-Semitism only extend to his wish to defend the world from Stalinism and its systematic destruction of Crimean Tatars. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/crimeas-tatars-fear-long-simmering-tensions-will-explode-n47331 Putin might also listen to the Jewish people of Ukraine who he claims to protect with his invasion to protect the world from fascism. In this open letter, among Ukraine’s leading Russian-speaking Jews call out his lies. http://eajc.org/page32/news43672.html One violates the Holocaust’s injunction to remember by invoking its memory to cloak ies and the destruction of others. In the end, however, Putin does not really need these lies for Putin’s Reality extends across Europe. While some may say that Putin’s Power Elite is now vulnerable to sanctions, it’s also true that their implication not only in European energy security but also European finance means that Europe has, itself, become dependent on Putin’s reality, on the privilege and priority of stability over the rule of law. Indeed, the very resistance of European authorities to launching a major investigation of money laundering among their wealthiest patrons from Russia suggests just the success of Putin’s regime. This is why the invasion of Ukraine is not just a struggle for the rule of law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is also a struggle for the survival of principle and morality over crude power politics. And this is why this is not Cold War II. In that first cold war, there was a legitimate ideological struggle over whether social rights or civil rights were foundational. The end of the cold war, for some liberals, proved that civil rights were more important. For more critical thinkers, we saw this was an opportunity to develop a healthier tension between the priorities of civil and social rights, one that was not held hostage by an ideology that claimed ownership over the latter even as it denied the right to have rights in practice. Is It Only Crude Geopolitics? In this potential cold war, there is no ideological struggle that goes beyond the crude self interest of a Putin who seeks to distract his public from their legitimate democratic wishes. This invasion of Crimea is a good way, too, to remind his 100+ billionaires that their control of more than 1/3 of Russia’s wealth is entirely dependent on him, and they dare not step out of line. No ideology worth its salt will celebrate an inequality of that magnitude that reflects patronage rather than innovation and creativity. There is nothing in Putin’s invasion that is worthy of defense. Communism looks good in comparison. The only thing that he has on his side is that he can make it worse. And that’s why this is not Cold War II, for this is no ideological contest. This is only a contest of wills and wisdom. And so far, the West dramatically lacks the former. And both sides lack the latter. Wisdom does not birth in compromise. It comes in transcendence. And that’s why we should stop talking about Cold War II and start talking about how Ukraine’s fate reflects the world we wish to inhabit. Or the world we will suffer by its dismal extension. Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and Russians themselves suffer first, but we are all at risk. Solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s Reality ” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/03/solidarity-with-ukraine-against-putins-reality/#.Uxo5G17TM7B , March 7, 2014 Michael D. Kennedy Completed March 3, 2014 9:00 pm We should not be surprised by differences about how to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Understanding reasons for those differences is one critical step toward formulating an effective response. Recognizing both real policy options and the equal importance of political signals is the second. Moving too fast is dangerous in the short run, but not moving at all is the most dangerous in the long run. And that’s what Germany’s leadership promises. We should not be surprised that the authorities of Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy and Spain explicitly resist calls for trade sanctions. Leaderships in Austria and Hungary are likely with them. London seems more concerned with its financial prospects than European well-being. Putin has been pursuing a policy of diplomatic divide and conquer within the EU, sweetened with economic deals powered by the energy business. Critical studies often explain corporate power and practice by analyzing interlocking directorates. It’s time that progressives use the same methods to understand Russia’s post-Soviet imperialist strategy, and the willingness of European elites to buy into it. Although Chancellor Merkel may report that Putin is out of touch with reality, Putin has constructed a business reality in which Germany, England, and others are deeply and increasingly implicated. And that reality finds expression in calls for more diplomacy, more fact-finding missions, more OSCE engagement in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And that’s just what Putin wants. It gives him even more time to consolidate what has by now become the fait accompli. Defacto if not dejure, Russia has Crimea. And Putin seeks more: a fully subordinated Ukraine through the country’s fracture into more autonomous regions easier for imperial manipulation. Germany and the like-minded are avoiding tough responses because they are living in and accepting Putin’s reality. That’s dangerous in the long run, for Putin’s reality is ultimately based on the rule of force, not the rule of law, on the convenience of the lie and not the search for the truth. Ukraine was trying to build something different. Euromaidan and its extensions rebuilt Ukrainian society. Although it had its political class, its methods were not unlike the Occupy movement itself. It was an alternative public, maybe even a “revolution in reverse” to use David Graeber’s terminology. It tried to model in protest the kind of society it sought to establish for the nation. While it had its limits, it certainly fared well in comparison to the regime it eventually overthrew. While some activists of Euromaidan might have pulled down Lenin statues and thrown Molotov Cocktails, the Yanukovych regime won any contest for brutality with its snipers and its torturers. That Yanukovych regime kidnapped hospital patients and assigned them to prison cells without health care. Euromaidan was a revolution in the name of dignity and rights. It overthrew a dictator. It’s insulting to discuss whether the new government is constitutional, for Euromaidan made a revolution against Yanukovych’s intransigence and brutality. Only 1989 managed to square that legal revolutionary circle. Of course Euromaidan also harbored those whose politics I detest. We should analyze critically and diminish politically all those who seek to restore fascism’s appeal, whether in its crude anti-Semitisms or celebrations of almighty leaders. At the same time, we should not fall prey to those who use the invocations of Bandera and other World War II fighters by some of Euromaidan’s activists to identify the whole movement’s politics. Russia has been deploying its considerable political technology to demonize the leadership come out of Euromaidan as fascists, thugs, and nationalists, in part to disguise their own fascist behavior. After all, what can be more fascist than to use Hitler’s techniques to justify war? On the day before German forces invaded Poland in 1939, Hitler dressed Nazis in Polish uniforms and attacked the German speaking Gliwice radio station. Poles and other East Europeans know this trick all too well, and see it in Putin’s forces today. After invading Crimea, Ukrainian soldiers have by and large resisted the impulse to fight. With this kind of strategic non-violence, itself a legacy of the Euromaidan revolution, Putin lost his justification for invasion. Instead, he relies on lies and provocations to get what he wants. He sends Russians to pose as Ukrainians to provoke clashes. He doctors digital media to imply mass oppression of Russian-speaking citizens. He creates the image of chaos so that he can rescue ethnic brethren. He denies that Russian-speaking Ukrainians might not want to live in a Russia defined by Putin’s reality. And Putin can rely on the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, to request the rescue of the Ukrainian nation against an unconstitutional takeover by the forces of Euromaidan. Who would want to be defended by such a lying and brutal regime? It cannot be any more clear that the New Ukraine Euromaidan promised is the kind of society the world wants as its partner and Ukrainians would prefer to a warfare-based state. It cannot be any more clear that the kind of society Putin wishes to install, and what he imposes at home, is the kind of order that is a risk to all. Too many invoke Munich 1938 as parallel. While I see the justification for parallel, I can’t justify the call to war. At the same time, I am glad Poland has assembled NATO forces. Poland has requested a meeting of NATO ambassadors under Article 4 of their Charter. This cannot be read, this should not be read, as preparation for NATO’s war with Russia. While some will identify NATO superiority in overall capacity, it does not have sufficient solidarity and will to go to war. That’s good. But they need sufficient coordination and commitment to use their capacity for war to deter further aggression. They also need to be careful. Brinksmanship could spark unwanted conflict. Poland may be playing an incredibly smart hand here. Their allies in the European Union and NATO know that Poland and Lithuania have been the most aggressive in defending the New Ukraine. These countries also know Russian political technologies better, or, at least, have the least stomach for them. Those NATO countries bordering Ukraine should invoke Article 4 to prepare for war in case Russia has a hard time stopping when it decides Crimea is not enough. Ukraine’s NATO neighbors should also prepare for war to move those allies still mired in Putin’s reality to more aggressive non-military actions. It has been repeated time and again by commentators. Impose sanctions now. Focus on Russia’s ruling class, and not just the men with their hands on the triggers and on the gas meters. Yes, freeze their accounts in Western banks, but also deny them and their families the visas that enable them to travel to this decadent Europe they so disdain in their public pronouncements, and so love in their private moments. Those sanctions will only reinforce the punishment global markets have already imposed on the Russian economy. Today the ruble declined to its lowest trading value vis-à-vis the dollar ever. Its MICEX index lost more than 10% of its value in a single day. Gazprom stock took an even bigger hit. Those declines could be exacerbated through the rule of law. What would happen if an extensive and systematic investigation of money laundering took place across Europe, with a focus on Russia’s ruling class? It is said that America should play the lead here. In the absence of leadership from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, it must. And it should support Poland, Sweden, Lithuania and the other parts of Europe who choose not to be defined by Putin’s reality. At the same time as political authorities act and markets collapse, its time for the publics of Europe and beyond to show their solidarity with Ukrainians struggling to defend their nation from invasion, and with Russians who struggle to save their nation from war’s destruction. I admire those courageous Russians who dare protest Putin’s war. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave. They coordinate, in part, with a hashtag circulating in Russia: #нетвойне, or No to War. There is some people to people diplomacy going on that is pretty compelling too. Ukrainian students communicate directly to Russian students: "We ask you to tell your leaders not to kill us" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI4fRRSjm2E … I also admire those Ukrainians who are now prepared to defend their nation. I admire their bravery, but I also admire their savvy. I admire their social media publicizing all of Putin’s lies, and I admire their willingness to sign up to fight Putin’s aggression. But they cannot win by themselves. And I pray that they don’t have to fight any more. One might hope that demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia’s oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin’s reckless intervention puts to the entire Russian economy, and to their way of life, and do something about it. But all of that depends on real solidarity with the New Ukraine, with that society whose virtues were so evidently being born on Euromaidan. It depends on the European Union and NATO finding common voice in severe sanctions. We can’t risk war. But we should prepare for it. If Putin’s reality defines the world, we will have to wage it. (March 5, 2014) “The West Should Stop Squirming and Put Sanctions on Russia” Michael D. Kennedy and Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. The Guardian Secretary of State John Kerry opened his latest press conference by assuring everyone of the "intense discussions" now underway to get Russia to "de-escalate" in Ukraine. It wasn't hard to anticipate Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We knew it was possible given the invasion by Russian troops of Georgia in 2008. We knew Russia could rely on some Crimean residents to say they needed protection from Ukrainian nationalists now in power, when they were not, in fact, at risk. We knew that Sevastopol was important for Russia, serving as the country's principal warm weather port for its navy. We should have expected that Russia would do anything to defend it. We should have expected they would go beyond the minimum and occupy the whole of the Crimean peninsula. We should have anticipated, and prevented, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That was a major failure of intelligence and diplomacy. While many now fault Europe and the US for failing to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the challenge now is how to resolve this and facilitate Russia's withdrawal. In short, we must challenge Russia to save Ukraine. As two brothers, a scholar and soldier, we were both disgusted – but not surprised – by the passivity of President Obama's initial response. To be "deeply concerned" and to issue vague threats of "consequences" may work in certain polite diplomatic worlds, but they were hardly likely to dissuade a President Vladimir Putin who appears to live in a reality distant from moral suasion. (Even Angela Merkel says so.) It looked like a different Obama administration at this week's start. President Obama cut off military ties to Russia. His administration now threatens to ban visas and extending the Magnitsky Act itself, which allows the US to sanction individual Russians. On top of that, new and substantial economic aid has been promised to Ukraine by Kerry and the EU. That should get the attention of even the most nationalistic of Putin's empire-rebuilding supporters. Targeting the oligarchy worked in Serbia during the assault on Kosova, when Nato targeted Serbian elites' economic interests, bringing Milosevic to the table. This may bring Putin to the table now. The Obama administration finally recognizes the Putin regime for what it is, and what the west needs to do before it backs away from this round of imperialist aggression. Putin's regime will recognize international legal regimes when convenient and violate them when it's not. Putin's regime will act in ways that shock liberal values and act as if it complies with those values when they violate them. David Remnick of the New Yorker says that Putin enjoys watching Europe and United States "squirm". This is Russian Great Power ideology, and if the takeover of Crimea is successful, this ideology will find its confirmation in the exercise of force. That extends even beyond Ukraine, as we now feel the effects of Russia's "success" in its invasion of Georgia. So much for the non-violent democratic revolution embodied in Euromaidan. We now see that past transformations like it, the so-called "color revolutions", depended on Russian acquiescence, a disposition no longer apparent. ReSet was, in retrospect, ridiculous. The west failed to recognize Russian Great Power, increasingly anxious about its own legitimacy at home, projecting its power abroad to distract its own public from the pseudo-democracy that Putin proclaims with the phrase "sovereign democracy". Euromaidan is Russia's greatest nightmare. Not because it risks moving Ukraine beyond a Eurasian Customs Union; the New Ukraine would have found compromise between Russia and Europe. It is a nightmare because it tells Russian citizens that pseudo-democracy is not all that the majority of Soviet descendents deserve. If Ukraine could develop a country based on dignity, human rights, and the rule of law, why not Russia? Ukrainians knew this, and they pressed forward. The west, stuck in visions of clashing civilizations, did not recognize how populations learn, change, and become something different than how they were born. Putin understood this better than the west, and that is why he acts to suppress Ukraine by its dismemberment, and, should he find resistance, full-scale war. The west does not just need to rethink diplomacy, to devise ever-smarter sanctions, to figure how to exclude Russia from the global network the west dominates. The west needs to recognize the dynamics of social change itself, the promise of Ukraine, and the fragility of Russia itself. We should not respond to Putin as if he were a kind of child with a tantrum who needs to be coddled. We must distinguish the Russian people from Putin and his regime, and recognize that the Russian people have the same potential as the Ukrainian people in their own self-emancipation. With that recognition, what does diplomacy in this crisis look like? It begins with the sanctions President Obama has identified. Secretary Kerry reiterated Wednesday that sanctions are still a "serious possibility". If Russia does not withdraw from Crimea, the US, along with its allies, must do more to ban visas for Russia's power elite and their families, and to extend the Magnitsky Act itself. Imagine the pressure on Putin if an extensive and systematic investigation of money laundering took place across Europe, with a focus on Russia's ruling class. Certain kinds of military action are also appropriate, those that display Nato unity and resolve without upping the ante and guaranteeing war. Such measures could include establishing Nato AWACS orbits over eastern Poland to monitor Ukrainian airspace, and/or conducting a no-warning air defense exercise in Poland involving rapid deployments of non-Polish NATO air defense capability to Polish skies, including the best fighter in the U.S. inventory, the F-22. By thus upping the ante, military risks for Russia would be dramatically increased and thus enter their calculations. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin's criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia on Sunday were not overwhelming, but they were incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia's own police. More and more Russians are standing up to Putin to say this ruins Russia. One might hope that those demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia's oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin's reckless intervention puts to the entire Russian economy, and do something about it. And one might hope that western leaders will recognize the danger Putin poses, and push back this great threat to global peace. Recognize Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine and label it for what it is. If that had been the starting point 10 days ago, we might not be at such a loss for what to do today. (March 5, 2014) “If the West Stands Up to Putin, Russian Economy Will Pay Heavy Cost” Global Post Floyd D. Kennedy and Michael D. Kennedy It’s easy to recognize both analytical failure and diplomatic incompetence after the fact. While many can now fault Europe and the United States for failing to prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we must now figure how to facilitate Russia’s withdrawal. Clarity is essential in analytical thinking in the midst of crisis, and we come together—one brother an expert on security and Russia, the other an expert sociologist on Poland and Ukraine—to consider how to challenge Russia to save Ukraine. First, the risk of escalating war must be avoided at all costs. Ukraine is already doing that, refusing to engage militarily over Crimea, but mobilizing to protect itself from an invasion of its mainland. Ukraine cannot stop Russia by itself, but it can, and will, inflict substantial casualties on Russian soldiers although its own civilian losses will be considerable. Still, such a military confrontation is unacceptable. At the same time, NATO must provide Ukraine with the support it needs to deter further aggression. What are the West's military options to counter this blatant act of aggression? While many NATO nations, including the bordering state of Poland, have highly capable forces, none–including the US–has the capacity to challenge Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine. The best the West can hope to do militarily is facilitate resistance through airpower if requested by Ukraine, a NATO Partnership for Peace nation. But no NATO nation wants to get involved in a shooting war. Brinksmanship could set the conditions for an unwanted military engagement through incremental measures such as establishing NATO AWACS orbits over eastern Poland. This tactic would enable NATO to monitor Ukrainian airspace, and/or conduct a no-warning air defense exercise in Poland. An exercise of this kind would involve rapid deployments of non-Polish NATO air defense capability to Polish skies, including the F-22, the best fighter in the US inventory. If NATO ups the ante, military risks for Russia would be dramatically increased. But alone, these moves would be secondary to the main focus: the Russian economy. In 2008, Putin's Russia carved out Georgian territory without consequence. Now Putin is rerunning that script in Ukraine. Will the West refuse once again to impose consequences? With Washington remaining hopelessly mired in the naïve belief about Putin's willingness to work with the United States, consequences are probably the last thing on the Obama administration's mind. Economic sanctions must be imposed—and quickly—to hurt the foundation of Russian imperialism. Russian assets must be frozen, all trade cut off, and the economic infrastructure of Russia and its oligarchy put at risk. Such consequences will get the attention of even the most nationalistic of Putin's empire-rebuilding supporters. It worked in Serbia, during the assault on Kosovo, when NATO targeted Serbian elites' economic interests, bringing Milosevic to the table. It can work again. The real economic costs for Russia’s ruling class, and indeed its entire country, will be starkly evident without any policy work. The Russian economy will decline sharply, as Western investors and creditors dump Russian commercial ties like the risky bets that they are. This process will be intensified if Western banks are no longer homes to the massive capital flight Russian oligarchs regularly stimulate with their transfers of wealth. Austria could take a lead here, given its banks’ deep ties to Russia’s ruling economic class. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin’s criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia today are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia’s own police. A hashtag is already circulating in Russia: #нетвойне, or #NotoWar. Compelling people-to-people diplomacy is going on when Ukrainian students communicate directly to Russian students: "We ask you to tell your leaders not to kill us." These demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. One might hope that Russia’s oligarchs will recognize the risk Putin’s reckless intervention incurs for the Russian economy, and do something about it. And one might hope that Western leaders will recognize the danger Putin himself poses, and push back this greatest threat to global peace the world has seen since the end of the Cold War. After Invasion Analytical Thinking and Diplomacy around Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy March 2, 2014, 9:37 AM EST The West was clearly not thinking well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I worry that the same kind of myopia and failure to imagine the range of possibilities continues to shape diplomacy. Here are some analytical points that ought to be put more squarely on the table. I begin with four points about context. First, we know that crises elsewhere in the world already embody greater humanitarian disaster and deserve more Western critical thinking. But now it becomes clear that Russian contributions to past critical thinking are likely to have been misrecognized. Though Russia may have acted as if it were a partner, this invasion of Ukraine suggests we ought to go back to consider how their partnership may have sidetracked resolutions of crisis elsewhere. Second, we know that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine magnifies the problem of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the 1994 treaty guarantee of its sovereignty by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Unless that agreement holds, and Russia withdraws, the world will enter a new stage of disregard for the rule of law and treaty. Third, we now see that the policy of ReSet was ridiculous. But the US is not alone in wishful thinking. Germany has been especially complicit in myopia, as Andreas Umland has argued (http://umland.livejournal.com/84516.html). In retrospect, the EU and the USA should have paid more heed to the critical dispositions associated with Polish and Baltic foreign policy. Failure to recognize possible Russian aggression, and to be willing to listen to Russian diplomatic dissimulation, enabled this crisis to take place. Fourth, those with little sympathy for Ukraine itself could view Euromaidan as a destabilizing endeavor that the West should not have supported. That kind of realism does not recognize the rights and aspirations of normal people in Ukraine, first of all, and second, does not acknowledge the ways in which an increasingly globalized world demands that publics be respected. We should expect more Euromaidans of the future, and stand with them if we are to be on the side of history. It’s easy to recognize analytical failure after the fact, with diplomatic debacles in tow. One needs clarity in analytical thinking in the midst of crisis, and this is what I see. First, one must avoid the risk of war at all costs. Ukraine is already doing that, refusing to engage militarily over Ukraine, but mobilizing to protect itself from an invasion of its mainland. Ukraine cannot stop Russia by itself, but it can, and will, inflict substantial casualties on Russian soldiers even while civilian losses will be considerable. This military confrontation is unacceptable. At the same time, NATO needs provide to Ukraine all the intelligence and cyber security it might, and make that known to Russia, so that Russia becomes aware of the even greater costs its incursion will cause. Second, and more substantial, is that Russian citizens, and especially their wealthy, must become clearly aware of the costs of this invasion to them. Unless Russia withdraws its troops from those parts of Crimea not directly associated with its Sevastopol naval facility, the European Union and North America should immediately deny visas to Russian citizens. It probably should ban only a certain wealth class of citizens, for there are too many Russian colleagues whose presence I treasure and whose collaboration is critical to globalizing knowledge and civility. But Russia’s ruling class needs to know the costs of this war, and they need to stop it. Tim Snyder makes that point here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116812/how-europe-should-respond-russian-intervention-ukraine Third, the real economic costs for that class, and the country, will be starkly evident without any policy work tomorrow. The Russian economy will decline sharply, as Western investors and creditors will dump Russian commercial ties like the risky bet that they are. That process will be intensified if Western banks are no longer homes to the massive capital flight Russian oligarchs regularly stimulate with their wealth. Here, Austria could take a lead given the ways in which its banks are so deeply tied to Russia’s ruling economic class. Finally, and absolutely, all actors must work hard to distinguish between Putin’s criminal regime and the Russian people. The demonstrations protesting this war in Russia today are not overwhelming, but they are incredibly brave, facing repression by Russia’s own police. Those demonstrations will grow as the costs of this criminal aggression in Ukraine become more apparent to the Russian public. Of all the pieces I have read in these last hours, Alexander Motyl’s is perhaps the most tragic, and realistic. He writes, Putin's incursion suggests that he must fear Ukraine -- so much so that he is willing to risk Russia's prosperity and stability. Putin the rational Bismarckian geostrategist has clearly given way to Putin the irrational and impulsive leader -- possibly as a result of the triumph of the democratic revolution in Ukraine. This may be the only ray of light in an otherwise catastrophic picture. Bad leaders make bad mistakes and, when they do, their power often disintegrates. Unfortunately, thousands of Ukrainians and Russians may have to die before that happens (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/01/putin_russia_ukraine_intervention_war) Motyl’s “only ray of light” is the kind of thing all analysts must keep in mind as they envision diplomacy after invasion. The era in which negotiations with dictators ensures stability is over, if it ever truly existed. This era in which we respect their publics and work to find a common ground in human rights and democracy’s extension is the new realism. Euromaidan has shown that way, but it won’t prove its point unless the world stands up to Russia’s criminal invasion in a way that is far smarter than past practice suggests capable. It is, however, necessary. Diplomatic and Analytical Failure in the face of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Michael D. Kennedy February 28, 2014, 9:00 pm EST It was not hard to anticipate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We knew it was possible given the invasion by Russian troops of Georgia in 2008. We knew Russia could rely on some Crimean residents to say they needed protection from Ukrainian nationalists now in power, when they were not, in fact, at risk. We knew that Sevastopol, the port on Crimea’s coast, was important for Russia. It serves as the country’s only warm weather port for its navy. We should have expected that Russia could do anything to defend it. Even if we knew they would protect their interests, we should have expected they would go beyond the minimum and occupy the whole of the Crimean peninsula. We should have anticipated Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And yet we act as if we cannot believe it. President Obama is “deeply concerned”. That’s not good enough. This is major diplomatic failure on the part of the West. I look forward to hearing the “consequences” with which President Obama threatens Russia. Georgia’s former President, Mikheil Saakashvili, recommends kicking Russia out of the G8 and going after Russian elite bank accounts in the West. That hardly seems like enough. Canadian diplomats acknowledge, frankly, that they do not have the firepower to challenge Russia toe to toe. They depend on US leadership. But I do not see it. And that is because Western actors refuse to recognize Russian power for what it is. Putin’s regime will recognize international legal regimes when convenient, and violate them when it’s not. Putin’s regime will act in ways that shock liberal values, and act as if it complies with those values when they violate them. David Remnick says that Putin enjoys watching Europe and United States “squirm”. This is Russian Great Power ideology, and if this Russian takeover of Crimea is successful, this ideology will find its confirmation in the exercise of force. That extends even beyond Ukraine, must as we now feel the effects of Russian “success” in their invasion of Georgia. So much for the non-violent democratic revolution embodied in Euromaidan. We now see that past transformations like it, the so-called “color revolutions”, depended on Russian acquiescence, a disposition no longer apparent. ReSet was, in retrospect, ridiculous. The West failed to recognize Russian Great Power, increasingly anxious about its own legitimacy at home, projecting its power abroad to distract its own public from the pseudo-democracy that Putin proclaims with the phrase “sovereign democracy”. Euromaidan, the Ukrainian Revolution, is Russia’s greatest nightmare. It’s a nightmare not because it risks moving Ukraine beyond a Eurasian Customs Union. The New Ukraine would have found compromise between Russia and Europe. It is a nightmare because it tells Russian citizens that pseudo-democracy is not all that the majority of Soviet descendents deserve. If Ukraine could develop a country based on dignity, human rights, and the rule of law, why not Russia? Ukrainians knew this, and they pressed forward. The West, stuck in their visions of clashing civilizations, could not recognize how populations learn, change, and become something different than how they were born. Putin understood this better than the West, and that is why he acts to suppress Ukraine by its dismememberment, and should he find resistance, full-scale war. The West does not just need to rethink diplomacy, to devise ever smarter sanctions, to figure how to exclude Russia from the global network the West dominates. The West needs to recognize the dynamics of social change itself, the promise of Ukraine, and the fragility of Russia itself. We should not respond to Russia as if it is a child with a tantrum that needs to be coddled, We need to distinguish the Russian people from Putin and his regime, and recognize that the Russian people have the same potential as the Ukrainian people in their own self-emancipation. With that recognition, what does diplomacy in this crisis look like? It certainly does not begin with being “deeply concerned”. It demands we name Putin’s regime as it is. This is a criminal regime invading a sovereign country. Recognize it and label it for what it is. And maybe if that was the starting point 10 days ago, we would not be at a loss for what to do before invasion today. (February 26, 2014) “Expertise and Ukraine in Transformation” Watson Institute for International Studies “Ask the Expert” https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 Michael D. Kennedy The transformations of Ukraine over the past three months have been breathtaking.  Ukraine has not only installed a different government, it has become a different country.  We all now know the meaning of Maidan – a Ukrainian word with Turkish roots, implying both a physical space and public discussion.  The gathering of Ukrainians on Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti or Майдан Незалежності) in Kyiv last November spawned a new hashtag – #Euromaidan – in virtual space.  The “Euro” in Euromaidan reflected the original protest against Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s decision to withdraw from an association agreement with the European Union.  That hashtag and related activity reveal a new global community engaged in the transformation of Ukraine.  Twitter life in Euromaidan’s address across the world can even be found in this infographic. That transformation of public engagement within Ukraine and across the world should also inspire a new kind of expertise, one that is not only sanctioned by hierarchies of knowledge and power, but that is also crowd-sourced, maybe even Facebook mobilized.  And that’s why the invitation to participate in an Ask the Expert project was so appealing. In addition to being a student of social change in Eastern and Central Europe, I am also a sociologist of intellectuals and knowledge.  I am not always comfortable with an appellation of “expert,” especially at a time when changes are so profound that expertise can be newly grounded and past experts outdated. The questions raised here reflect both past concerns and those emergent from the process of transformation itself. We should be careful not to allow past expert claims to define what we see.  For example, the distinction between East and West, especially between those parts of Ukraine once part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and those more associated with the Russian, is well documented.  At the same time, we have seen in the process of transformation recognition of those fault lines, and struggles against threats to divide the country.  (Of course there are those who might wish to exploit those divisions in order to divide the country, too.) The transformation we see in Ukraine is not only extraordinarily dignified and courageous, but also remarkably knowledgeable.  However, the challenge Ukraine faces in the days, months, and years ahead is greater than what a national community can face by itself.  Certainly the country needs considerable financial resources, but it also needs a global range of expertise developed with its particular concerns in mind.  The discussion generated below is an example of how that might be done. In addition to issuing open calls for comments, I also mobilized my specific networks earned through more than 20 years of engagement with Ukrainian friends and colleagues, as well as those networks mobilized in the course of Euromaidan on Facebook and Twitter.  I said this on Twitter:https://www.facebook.com/notes/watson-institute-for-international-studies/draft/10152063853929983 "Let's flip "ask the expert": what questions might experts pose to policy makers and publics re Ukrainian Revolution?". You can see what they say, and my comments in response, here. Move Beyond Concern to Consequence in Supporting Ukraine’s Revolution Michael D. Kennedy February 22, 2014 It is now time for the European Union and the United States to provide the kind of support and recognition the brave men and women of Euromaidan, and of the whole of Ukraine, now deserve in the wake of their largely non-violent revolution. Ukraine has realized that revolution almost despite the limited solidarity it has enjoyed from the European Union and the United States. Yes diplomacy is tricky, and the West could not do so much as to give substance to those views in Russia and elsewhere that find Western conspiracies in making all kinds of change. But many in Ukraine have soured over these last months on the vision and decency of the West as all that could be heard on the squares of revolution were diplomatic invocations of concern. Yes Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, and the foreign ministers of France and Germany, may have intervened at just the right time when they mediated negotiations between Maidan’s political spokespersons and Yanukovych. Sikorski says that they enabled this day’s definition in negotiation’s terms, rather than the martial law then President Yanukovych threatened. But I would like to think our European emissaries smarter than that. What they did was to give Yanukovych a way out, one that enabled the opposition to focus on parliamentary maneuver to bring back a less executive constitution and to refashion leadership in the parliament. It also gave space for the decent to leave Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. We can rely on historians for the proper interpretation of these last days. Now we need to think of what these last hours mean for how to move ahead. First, we need to think of the abiding dangers. There are no doubt some in the south and east of Ukraine who are trying to construct scenarios to take back power in Kyiv. They are fools, but dangerous fools. There are more who consider whether breaking Ukraine apart is possible. They are not so foolish, and they are also more dangerous. No doubt Russia is contemplating the same thing as they worry about their own Black Sea naval power and base in Crimea. The European Union, and especially NATO, cannot blink right now. Ukraine has restored democracy, and the full force of NATO must stand with Ukraine against any kind of Russian intervention like what occurred in Georgia in 2008. Of course we cannot afford any kind of provocations like what the Georgian leadership gave to Russia to justify their moves into South Ossetia. That is why, above all, we need savvy political leadership in Ukraine, and outstanding diplomacy in its engagement. Sikorski has played a critical role here, and no doubt he is an extraordinarily good influence in these times. But we need more than savvy now. We need strategy and we need commitment to honor what Ukrainians have won through sheer courage and dignity. When I raised in social media the prospect of a new and epoch appropriate Marshall Plan, the applause was thunderous. This kind of commitment, not some kind of trivial symbolic gesture, is what Ukraine needs, what Ukraine deserves. At the same time, this kind of support must be assured of being invested in Ukraine, and not somehow used to pay off the substantial debt Ukraine owes to Russia first among all of its creditors. To invest in Ukrainian energy and the conversion of its extraordinarily inefficient energy consumption would be one place to start. But it’s not just money. We do not now have a sufficiently visionary leadership in Europe or the United States to imagine what it takes to bring Ukraine into the network of democracies it has so valiantly struggled to join. I would like to be proven wrong about my own country and its closest world ally. And I know I am not alone in that wish. I know some 45 million citizens in Ukraine who lost faith in the last few months over Western resolve. Now that we have responsible partners in Ukraine, there is no excuse for only being able to raise concern. It’s time to raise commitment. Honor what Ukraine has done today with a commitment to partnership with Ukraine. (February 23, 2014) “Ukraine’s Bully Must Be Removed” Providence Journal Michael D. Kennedy (written February 20, 2014 10:20 AM EST) The terror of the regime has gone too far. Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich must go, and those loyal to the nation and to a sense of decency and dignity for which that nation can stand must force him out. By the end of Wednesday, more than 40 protesters and bystanders had died, probably more. We don’t know how many protesters were burned alive in a fire the regime’s special police started. We do know that those forces are now using AK47s and armor piercing bullets to kill. They kill not just those who wield Molotov Cocktails, but they kill the medics who try to save protesters and police alike. The medical crisis grows, as health care providers struggle to find places where they can treat the injured as snipers rain bullets down on everyone indiscriminately, just as their stun grenades injure peaceful souls. There are also reports of various shutdowns -- of gas stations, bridges, and other modes of communication to prevent protesters' mobility. Of course Euromaidan and their allies resist. The most headline grabbing has been the capture of some 50 policemen whose fates are to be determined by negotiations. Some have reported the acquisition of weapons by opposition forces, using them to push back militia from the protesters’ zones of occupation. And some police have been killed. All of this bloodshed clearly stains the hands of President Viktor Yanukovych. The situation has now moved beyond the point of no return. There are many in his own Party of Regions who recognize this -- defections from his party now occur in far greater numbers than we have seen previously. Lviv leads the way among other cities in establishing its own self defense from Yanukoych forces. Their entire city is mobilized to prevent those forces of violence to enter their terrain. Foreign ministers from Poland, Germany and France are meeting with Yanukovych, although he had to take a break in order to take a call from Russian President Putin. I write from a distance. I don't have the resources available to me that my colleagues and friends who are from and expert on Ukraine have. Still, I can't imagine a negotiated settlement any longer. I cannot imagine, either, Yanukovych winning any election. That is now impossible. Too many people have been harmed for him ever to regain authority in any sense. The oligarchs whose fortunes are now at risk, must know this. Either he will be forced to resign, or military whose oaths are, in the end, to the people will ally with the protesters to depose him and those with him. On February 19, Yanukovych sacked his military chief, Col Gen Volodymyr Zamana, to replace him with Admiral Yuriy Ilyina from Crimea, someone putatively more personally loyal. Zamana refused, it is said, to allow regular military to be used in the assault on the Ukrainian people. This kind of split should be the beginning of the end for Yanukovych. The worry of many, still, is that Russia could intervene, using justifications that it used in Georgia in 2008 to invade and rescue those with affinities for the Russian Federation. Given the dispositions of many in Crimea and its strategic importance for Russia's naval fleet, I fear this is entirely possible in the coming days as well, especially after the Olympics conclude. Should this be attempted, I don't know that NATO could simply stand by. At least our diplomatic corps must be letting Putin know that NATO could express more than “concern” with such an outcome. While nobody would want such a conflagration, pathways made by others can trap actors with no intent of violence. We see this in Kyiv right now. And here is what I fear, and why those with the capacity to end this violence must do so now and immediately. There is no other way to do it than by deposing Yanukovych and declaring a transition government with full representation by Euromaidan forces. While Glory to Ukraine, the literal translation of Slava Ukraina, may sound odd to Western ears, it's hard not to end this reflection without that invocation. I hear it to mean “Blessings to Ukraine”. For in these days, Ukrainians of good will and dignity need more than weapons to save their country. They need the grace that comes by recognizing their common fates without and beyond Yanukovych and those who have killed innocent Ukrainian citizens. I pray for Ukraine in this moment. Slava Ukraina.  (December 5, 2013 ) “A Nonviolent Revolution in Ukraine” Providence Journal Michael D. Kennedy Ukraine is in a revolutionary moment. I hope it’s negotiated. For nearly two weeks, people have occupied squares across Ukraine, and most prominently, and critically, in the nation’s capital, Kyiv. They initially assembled to support their country’s Association Agreement with the European Union, then to protest President Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the agreement, and then to demand his resignation after his special militia attacked peaceful protesters on Independence Square, the home of the Orange Revolution. As I write, portions of that protest occupy Kyiv’s City Hall. Lviv’s mayor has declared that his city stands with the protest, and will not tolerate armed intervention from without. This dynamic enjoys incredible movement energy. All across Ukraine, and across the world in the Ukrainian diaspora and among their friends, more than 1 million people have mobilized in support of “Euromaidan”, the hashtag denominating a new horizontalist movement demanding Ukraine’s European future. Students have led the way to an alternative Ukraine. And now people from across regions, classes, and generations join them in the struggle. They have mobilized long abiding and innovative social movement techniques to pressure policy choices. Even the 2004 Eurovision song contest winner, Ruslana, used her singing energy to keep the protesters in good spirits, and then after the crackdown, ushered the injured to sanctuary in St. Michael’s Cathedral. Pop music mixes w/ religious devotion in redefining the meaning of the Ukrainian nation away from the rule its oligarchs have crafted. Much of the Ukrainian oligarchy is tied to the East, and to Russia. Those interests not only conspire with Vladimir Putin to keep Ukraine in the Russian sphere of interest, but they also hire hooligans to beat citizens who dare to embrace that European future in their cities. They are feverishly looking for a way to hold on to their power. Already we see demonstrations in Kharkiv in support of change. That eastern city, once identified with Russia, now witnesses struggles to identify with the future instead. They join some oligarchs who already say yes to Europe. Those oligarchs see the promise of more regularity in law, more transparency in commerce, and fairer competition in democracy to be a better long term investment in their country’s future, and to securing their own wealth. Yulia Tymoshenko, the country’s former prime minister now many months in prison as a victim of Yanukovych’s selective justice, was perceived to be the West’s principal ally. Her release became the principal condition for the EU improving ties with Ukraine. But today, the spirit of Euromaidan eclipses all the oligarchs, west and east, in jail and in power. Repression cannot end this revolution. However, it’s quite possible that things will spiral out of control and a brutal state of martial law could be imposed. In fact, just that kind of “state of emergency” might be declared even when things are not out of control. Already authorities use agents provocateur to suggest such unruliness. But hundreds of thousands of citizens work hard to keep their protests peaceful. Clearly one faction of the ruling party wants a confrontation to impose their will, in what some call the way of Putin. But the Russian president never had hundreds of thousands of his citizens rising up against him. For that reason, force is not an option, although some may pursue it. There is a better alternative future for Ukraine: President Yanukovych’s resignation. Few like to recall the way in which Poland’s negotiated revolution took place in 1989. Of course it depended on a mobilized civil society united behind Lech Walesa and Solidarnosc, but its peaceful outcome depended on President and General Wojciech Jaruzelski negotiating his ultimate exit from power. One might even recall Ukraine’s Orange Revolution itself. Then President Leonid Kuchma did not, as his protégé Yanukovych wished, declare a state of emergency and crush the revolution. Whatever his past accomplishments, or faults, Kuchma enabled that peaceful Orange Revolution to carry on. Indeed, in 2011 he told me that, by refusing to crush that Orange Revolution, he proved Ukraine a European nation. These examples of European revolutionary situations over the last 25 years show that it’s not only a mobilized civil society, but also an elite that recognizes when its historical role is to negotiate the end to its rule. There was some promise of movement on that score on December 3, but the Ukrainian parliament voted down a motion of no confidence in the government. Only one person from the ruling party crossed over, and many legislators simply abstained. The possibilities for violent confrontation grow. There is one way out. President Yanukovych could serve his nation best by, together with his government, resigning and enabling a nonviolent revolution in Ukraine. (June 21, 2013) “Occupy Movements Around the World: How Is Brazil’s Different?” HuffPost (Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Michael D. Kennedy) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gianpaolo-baiocchi/occupy-movements-around-t_b_3480620.html (the longer version) Some journalists call the protests "Occupy the Brazilian Streets".  Of course Occupy Wall Street began the theme in 2011, but that was in turn inspired by what was happening in Egypt's Tahrir Square.  European protests, notably among the Indignados in Spain, were of a similar quality.  These local moments of a global occupy movement are a new stage in the history of protest. "Horizontalist" movements, those emphasizing direct democracy and collective decision making in opposition to political vanguards or parties, are beyond left and right.  They claim that the elite, both financial and political, have lost touch with the citizenry and with the public goods governments are supposed to provide. All these movements challenge the corruption of local, national, and global elites. That being said, the global occupy movement has different local and national expressions.  Some are divided politically despite claims to the contrary: in the USA, the Tea Party movement and Occupy have similar grievances, but the former fails to recognize the implication of some of the Republican political elite and financial elite as part of the problem.  In other cases, notably among the Indignados, no political elite is worth supporting and the Indignados are relatively united in their quest to assure the autonomy of the movement from political parties. Another variation is violence. Brazil, Turkey and Egypt have suffered more explicit and extreme violence than other occupy struggles.  In some cases, my Turkish colleagues tell me, the state's agents provocateurs, posing as protesters, threw molotov cocktails in order to justify police violence.  After a week of police brutality, Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff praised the police in Rio for their restraint on Monday night. And that is part of what makes Brazil different from all these other sites of occupy struggle. Brazil’s ruling party is grounded in workers' and popular struggle for more rights; few other elites worry about "being on the wrong side of history", as Gilberto Carvalho, Rousseff's secretary general, expressed. Indeed, the youth wing of that ruling Workers Party has itself expressed solidarity with the protesters. No wing of the ruling Turkish party has come out in support of Occupy Gezi. Brazil is also different because it has a civil society accustomed to struggle, learned in how popular participation can change national trajectories. Indeed, its innovations in participatory budgeting have taught the world that the public can figure how government moneys should be spent. At the same time, Brazil’s Workers Party government is also seduced by the allures of great power potlatch as they invest enormous resources in hosting the World Cup next year and Olympics two years later.  The fact that Brazilians can protest this allocation of resources as a sign of the corruption of public values is testimony to Brazil's legacy of participatory democracy. Where forward? Two thoughts. First, given the novelty of these movements on the stage of world history we have no longstanding theory on which to base predictions.  Movements do have cycles and rhythms, but precisely because they are acts of creative worldmaking, they can also defy expectations.  Occupy movements on a world scale have demonstrated that, and continue to evolve in new ways.  Their trajectory depends more on government response than the movements themselves. If the authorities negotiate with protesters, listen to the protests, and figure ways to stand with their just concerns, their protest will sooner fade and move into new policies and practices addressing injustice.  If authorities respond with violence, the movement may lose a few faint of heart, but the core of the movement will feel even more righteous in their commitment to escalating the conflict.  In such violence, nobody wins. But these movements offer hope, and that's the second thought. While these are horizontalist movements, there are rings to those who occupy.  Their cores are built around those with years of movement experience and are more directly committed to mobilizing for their sense of justice.  The outer ring includes those who continue to see value in organizing around electoral contest. Brazil has many not only in the core, but also that outer ring. But it’s a tough place to be. It’s a tough calculation – how will the response to protests affect upcoming elections? But it’s more than calculation. Many of those in the Workers’ Party came to politics through popular struggle. For them to be in the office and not in the streets is fraught with contradiction, and real emotion. Those occupying this outer ring may decide the course of democracy’s future. To the extent they can highlight outcomes of the people's struggles in the priorities of their elected leaders, representative democracy may regain some legitimacy.  To the extent the elite misses the point of protest, democracy is itself at risk. And that’s a risk the world over. (February 3, 2012) “Poles Rallying for Our Digital Freedom” Providence Journal B6 Are the Poles crazy? Does the international Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) really endanger freedom? And why should that matter to us? When Wikipedia went dark in protest on Jan.18, the digital public took notice that something was wrong. And wrong it was. Advocates of Internet freedom warned that legislation going through Congress – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the House, and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), in the Senate - risked tilting the balance toward the interests of content producers defending corporate intellectual property, and away from the innovation/creativity through sharing that has characterized the Internet. The electronic mobilization on that day and the lobbying that surrounded it moved our representatives away from misconceived legislation. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. Little did the broader public appreciate that the U.S. had already enacted the ACTA, in October 2011, as an international executive agreement, through which the U.S. will ultimately have to develop new legislation to be in compliance. We will face the Son of SOPA once the ACTA takes effect, if it takes effect. Because the ACTA was not a treaty, it was not submitted to democratic deliberation. That could raise questions about its constitutionality, which could then let the U.S. public debate the ACTA. But it should watch Europe to prepare for that discussion. On Jan. 26, representatives of most of the European Union's countries, as well as the E.U.'s executive branch representative, signed the agreement. And the usual protests took place, similar to what happened in the U.S. around the SOPA and the PIPA. The techno-savvy jammed Internet discussion, but this protest had another element that shows a more dangerous derivative of democratic deficit around Internet governance. Anonymous, the group best known for its Guy Fawkes mask from "V for Vendetta" fame, hacked and shut down Polish government Web sites on Jan. 22 to protest the ruling party's support for the ACTA. Although many denounced this kind of virtual violence, inspiring Polish Premier Donald Tusk to declare he would not be blackmailed, it also raised awareness in ways that recalled the Wikipedia blackout over the SOPA. Except this time, instead of legislators changing legislation following reasoned discussion, Anonymous hactivism highlighting Poland's executive fait accompli moved thousands of  protesters into the streets. Across more than 20 cities in Poland people, especially the young, marched to demand that their fundamental rights stay protected, and that their interests as citizens take precedence over the rights of content providers worried about losing money due to copyright nfringement. Most experts acknowledge that existing copyright laws are inadequate for the Digital Age. I participated in an International Bar Association meeting about similar issues a year ago; lawyers typically argued that we needed new legislation, with the debate between Internet Service Providers (ISP) and content providers going back and forth. But the techno-savvy said the debate is all wrong: The technology is changing so fast that legislating copyrights without recognizing how the digital era creates new economies and new public goods is like trying to demand in 1930 that those on horseback should get a license because people with cars have them. We need legislation that preserves the Internet as a public good, and recognizes legitimate concerns over copyright. In particular, we need to recognize and support the new business models coming along with this new technology so that private interests and public goods can be in sync again. The ACTA is better than it was, but it is still not good enough. We also need to be concerned about basic democratic rights in the process. Here are just some of the concerns experts have identified: The ACTA extends the range of those liable for infringing on intellectual property (IP) rights too far, from those who directly infringe to those who enable copyright infringement, such as ISP's. Moreover, ISP's become subject to criminal prosecution, and not just civil suits, as they are now. And when we add in such vague notions as "indirect economic advantage," even such innocent things as noncommercial file-sharing could become cause for action. "Fair use" of copyrighted materials could disappear under the ACTA. With this liability, IP rights holders and ISP's wind up governing who has access to the Internet, and who does not. Neither of those agencies is democratically accountable. The Poles got it before any other public. They have a tradition of mobilization - remember how their 1980-81 Solidarity movement began communism's unraveling? They have a tradition of freedom - "for your freedom and ours" was their 19th Century rallying cry for independence. They are a big European nation, with lots of wired young people - a big "digital native" population. And while their leadership is liberal, their politicos are out of digital touch. Otherwise, they would have known. And now everyone can learn from their mistake. In fact, Premier Tusk has already backed down, and said that he is suspending the ratification process, and will have an open meeting about it on Monday. The European Parliament is now up in arms about this legislation, which will not be ratified unless this branch of the European Union approves it. And that approval is looking more doubtful over time, as representatives listen to their public, and publics mobilize across the E.U. More than 50 publics across Europe plan protests in the next few days ( http://www.mediarp.pl/acta/mapa-protestow). The French Member of European Parliament charged with being the ACTA's lead negotiator has already quit. The European Parliament may listen to its citizens and shut this legislation down and go back to the drawing board to make it more transparent. It would be good if President Obama could empower his legislature to do the same so that what the Poles have inspired in Europe might become common sense in America, too. For your digital freedom and ours. (October 20, 2011) “An Ex-Premiere’s Plight and the Future of Ukrainian Freedom and Democracy” Providence Journal, B7 Democracy dictates the law in Ukraine, at least if Orwell’s 1984 is its model. Last Tuesday, Ukraine’s criminal justice system sentenced former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to seven years in prison for exceeding her political authority in office during negotiations of a gas deal with Russia. Whether or not she goes to prison, it is actually the current president, Viktor Yanukovych, who will be the bigger loser because he may have just lost the chance to recover his democratic reputation. Ukraine, however, could very well be the biggest loser. Mr. Yanukovych claimed victory in the 2004 presidential elections, but the Orange Revolution overturned what many considered a fraudulent outcome. Viktor Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were the heroes of that revolution, and became president and prime minister, respectively. Their own relationship soured while in office, and in the past year has become terrible; worse, their combined leadership of the country was not what it could have been, at least in the eyes of most of the Ukrainian electorate. In 2010, the man ousted by the revolution came back to defeat the Orange Revolutionaries in what were widely deemed fair elections. While Mr. Yanukovych may not have been the West’s preferred leader, most in the world celebrated evidence of democracy’s further consolidation in Ukraine. This week, most in the West castigate democracy’s caricature in Ukraine, where the legal system is used to win political contest. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is exceptionally forceful on this, having tweeted, “We have reacted strongly against the… sentence against Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine. This will endanger the entire relationship.” But Mr. Yanukovych knew this would be the results of this outcome; Mr. Bildt and Mr. Yanukovych had a face to face meeting about this in September, and public discussion in Yalta last month among leaders of Ukraine and representatives of the European Union and its member states said, in no uncertain terms that her imprisonment would have dire consequences for the European-Ukrainian relationship (http://yes-ukraine.org/en/Yalta-annual-meeting/2011). Mr. Yanukovych knew what he was doing. One may have confidence in Mr. Yanukovych’s foresight if his intention was to push Europe away so that the customs union offered by Russia and other former Soviet republics would become Ukraine’s default transnational association. He knew that by carrying out Tymoshenko’s prosecution, the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the EU now on the table could be scuttled. And with that scuttling, he need not carry out the systematic reforms of the legislative and judicial systems essential for ending the country’s suffocating corruption, as he simultaneously hobbled one of his most prominent critics. And here is the West’s diplomatic dilemma. The European Union could play into Russia’s hands by denying that agreement to Ukraine, which, in turn, would limit even more the leverage the West could exercise in supporting democracy’s deepening in Ukraine. If the West is to live up its principles, those in Sweden, the Netherlands, and other parts of the west EU argue, this denial is what must be done. But others, knowing the challenge of moving beyond the corruptions made by communist legacies and postcommunism’s possibilities, suggest a more targetted pressure, with particular visa bans and freezing assets abroad for example. Ukraine, as a country, needs that DCFTA with Europe to continue its progress, at least according to its leading entrepreneurs and business people trying to make a more legal rational, and less kleptocratic, capitalism. In the end, however, this is about Yulia Tymoshenko and the other opposition figures against whom selective prosecutions have been carried out. Human rights groups within and beyond the country have been careful not to judge whether she exceeded her authority as prime minister, much less made a good deal for Ukraine. But they are universally agreed: she should be freed. President Yanukovych has an out, he thinks; he has said repeatedly that the law under which Ms. Tymoshenko was charged is outdated, and must be changed. That may lead to her release, and that outcome is just. But what will be even more just is if she is not only released, but that Europe, and those next elected in Ukraine, work together to assure that the rule of law and the judiciary don’t resemble a scene from Orwell’s 1984. President Yanukovych: live up to your promise and don’t make George Orwell required reading in my next course addressing democracy in Ukraine. And to my colleagues in the EU leadership: find a way to pressure Ukrainian leaders without setting back Ukrainian reform and integration with Europe. (October 19, 2004) “Are Poles Bushmen?” Chicago Tribune The Polish government's announcement that it would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq during 2005 is not the October surprise most of the media anticipate, but it certainly should come as a surprise to President Bush given his emphasis during the first two presidential debates on Poland's role in Iraq. In order to survive a vote of confidence, Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka announced that Poland would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq next year. Had Bush read the polls, and the Poles, better, he might have seen that Poland is not quite the country he imagined. He had good reason to hope so, of course, given that Poland was the only European country, and one of only four countries in a worldwide system of preferences about the upcoming American presidential elections, to support Bush (31 percent) over Sen. John Kerry (26 percent, with the rest unsure). In that light, Poland's leading daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, asked whether Poles were, in fact, "Bushmen." Poland has certainly been Bush's strongest supporter in continental Europe. About 2,500 Polish troops are contributing to security in Iraq, where they struggle to defend antiquity's Babylonian treasures among other challenges. Poland lost 13 soldiers, and many Poles anticipate that Poland, like Spain, also could be victims of terrorist attack due to the Polish presence in Iraq. One year ago, 40 percent of the Polish public supported the assignment of their troops in Iraq, according to a leading public opinion polling organization, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. As in America, there's no simple answer for who likes Bush in Poland. The president's support is obviously greater among those who identify with the political right, but he also gets much greater support from those over 55, villagers, the unemployed and less educated, as well as the upper-middle class. Kerry is much more likely to get the support of students, lower-level managers and farmers. Kerry also gets the vote of secular Poland, while Bush wins among those who go to church regularly. The most devout Poles, however, split their vote. I think that's because of the war in Iraq. Nobody in Poland, or in America, ever explained adequately to the faithful how this self-identified Christian president could prosecute a war that Pope John Paul II so obviously opposed. The Catholic doctrine of a just war sees violence as a last resort, not as freedom's midwife. But freedom's ring can sometimes drown out moral doubt. It has done that, at least, among the hard core of Polish Bushmen. Enthusiastic support for Polish participation in the war has not fallen below 8 percent over the last 14 months, and 15 percent of the public actually like Bush's foreign policy. This makes sense. Poland has been defined by its struggle for freedom, and when President Bush invited Poland to join in the liberation of Iraq from tyranny, Polish principles inspired solidarity with America. But freedom's appeal is wearing thin, especially when it looks disingenuous. How can President Bush declare that Iraqis are living in freedom, one of my thoughtful Polish friends asked me, when political leaders and members of the press are not safe to be in public? How can Bush say that freedom was America's goal, when Americans appeal to dictators elsewhere for support? He speculated that Bush's neoconservative ideology made this quagmire, by identifying this unnecessary war with the struggle against terrorism. American military power can topple any regime, but military occupation cannot invent freedom in this part of the world, he said. This ideology overestimated the power of America and Iraq's readiness to become its Middle East replica. My friend is certainly no Bushman, and he reflects more and more of his countrymen. This European Bushmen bastion is crumbling. Over the last year, Polish support for their participation in this war in Iraq has declined to 26 percent from 40. President Bush's foreign policy has itself inspired the crumble--40 percent of the Polish public finds that policy to have worsened their opinion of America. Despite his association with the American political party and first family most identified with Poland's 1989 liberation from communism, President Bush actually enjoys less support in 2004 than he did in 2000, when 40 percent of Poles believed he would be better for Poland than Al Gore would (Gore received only 7 percent support). Former Polish President Lech Walesa put it simply on TV in Poland before his recent American sojourn--he supports John Kerry because he is better for Poland. What, I asked my thoughtful friend, could Kerry do better than Bush, if America cannot design democracy in Iraq? Simple, he said. Kerry won't lead an American invasion of Iran or Syria. Bush might, and that would put Poland in the terrible position of choosing between supporting their dear military ally and pursuing a foreign policy that is good for Poland. It will also divide the religious community between those who see violence as a last resort, like Pope John Paul II, and those who see violence as a means to peace. I now wonder whether the Polish newspaper's double meaning around Polish Bushmen wasn't so politically incorrect. Centuries of racism might make it difficult for Poles to identify with Africans. It may take only four more years of American Bushmen in power to destroy the special relationship Poland and the United States enjoy based on a common commitment to freedom and morality in world affairs. (December 11, 2001) “FBI Interviews Feel Hauntingly Familiar” Detroit Free Press When I learned about the FBI’s proposed interviews with young men on visas, I recalled my own 1984 interview in Poland. My conversation wasn’t “voluntary”, but it was disturbingly similar to what may be happening in 2001. I was waiting for the renewal of my visa in the Polish government office when a secretary told me that I would have to wait longer. An official wanted to speak with me. I waited for nearly 15 minutes, and thought through all the things that he, and I, might say. I needed to be careful. Another scholar had been deported in the previous year. I would weigh my words carefully. A charming and gracious man came into the hall and invited me to his office. He asked how I liked Poland and whether I had Polish family. No, I was an Irish-American, and I appreciated the hospitality of the Polish people. How was my research going? Yes, I was continuing to work on the occupational structure of Polish professions, and I had learned a lot from my colleagues in sociology. And what did I think about Solidarity? This “Big Brother” was asking me what I thought about the independent trade union and social movement that was crushed by the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981. What could I say? I went to Poland because the 1980-81 Solidarity movement inspired me to think beyond political conventions, and to find hope in the struggle against tyranny and for social justice. In the course of my research, my sociology of professions evolved into an analysis of how professionals and workers allied in the Solidarity movement. I spoke to many physicians who were active in the underground, but we were careful never to implicate one another. But how much did this agent know? What should I say? I steered the discussion in an academic direction. I explained it was difficult to have an opinion of such a large and complicated movement without having good data, but then referred to what some Polish sociologists sympathetic to the government had said about the ubiquity of industrial conflict. He was an intelligent man, and enjoyed the intellectual banter. At one point I recall telling him that his analysis didn’t seem Marxist, at which he laughed. I wasn’t laughing. While I was surprised by my cool, I also was unschooled in dealing with interrogations by intelligence officers. I worried at every moment about what I might say – how a careless comment or a casual reference to a colleague could get them in trouble. And of course I was concerned about myself. I didn’t expect to be detained, but I had just spent eight months in the field gathering data for my doctoral dissertation. What would happen to all that work if my need to keep the Polish government at arms length led them to confiscate my materials and send me home two months early? I had reason to worry. I had already heard about these tactics. Polish-American students sometimes attended medical schools in Poland. Toward the end of their stay, intelligence officers would ask them to become informants. No doubt the medical students’ agents could be as kind and gracious as my interlocutor, but these students were at an even greater disadvantage than I. The authorities could revoke an American’s visa and send him home with no degree to show for years of study. Most of my American friends in Poland resisted that pressure, and I knew no one who failed to get their degree because of political interference. But we all wondered whether any one of us became an informant. I never compromised my friends and colleagues associated with Solidarity, but the officer so much “enjoyed” our conversation that he promised to call on me again. By traveling as much as I could, I avoided that meeting and the cruel compromises Big Brother would try to force on me. Of course those were very different times, and a very different place than present day America. In 1984, George Orwell’s Big Brother was on our minds. My Big Brother represented communists in power who sought to destroy a movement that was non-violent. Other comparisons are less comforting: The Polish authorities were not detaining Americans, and if deported, Americans would return to a democracy where their rights would be respected. Americans also did not worry whether the perception of being an informant would lead Solidarity to threaten family or friends. In 2001, Big Brother seems to comfort us. We feel like we need someone strong and better informed to assure our security. A Russian student enrolled at an American university recently remarked that this new surveillance does not bother her at all, for they have been doing this in Russia for quite some time. She is used to it. I can’t know whether FBI invitations to "interview" young men on visas from certain countries will enhance our security. I only know it feels an awful lot like what I got to know in 1984. I hope America doesn’t get used to it. 5

Public Sociology Beyond the Time of Trump Michael D. Kennedy Audio and Video Products (2023) Interview with Bill Bartholomew concerning Rhode Island’s First Congressional District 2023 Democratic Primary https://btown.buzzsprout.com/163601/13463347-brown-university-sociologist-michael-d-kennedy-talks-cd1-race (2023) A contribution to Sądy przesądy – w powiększeniu TVP program about sociologist Michal Luczewski https://vod.tvp.pl/programy,88/sady-przesady--w-powiekszeniu-odcinki,274577/odcinek-424,S01E424,390730 (September 24-26, 2022) participation in “The Shifting Limits of State Action”, a conference at Cracow Economics University https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=sxVWo7DJm1c&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR33Z7iQ8yhWdWgtrcFrNXi7Arzbqp-HucwMvWEa5ai6L6JgohD_peUbEHQ (May 20, 2022) Featuring Kosova Prime Minister Albin Kurti: “Deepening Democracy within Kosova and Across Europe and the World in Times of Crisis” https://watson.brown.edu/events/2022/prime-minister-albin-kurti-deepening-democracy-within-kosova-and-across-europe-and-world, recording available and with my post-script: “Deepening Democracy: An Intellectual, Activist, and former Political Prisoner Who Is Now a Prime Minister” https://watson.brown.edu/files/watson/imce/events/2022/KurtiForWatson.pdf (April 26, 2022) “Professor Michael Kennedy’s IAPA Course Shines a Light on Ukraine” https://watson.brown.edu/iapa/about/profiles/2022/professor-michael-kennedy-s-iapa-course-shines-light-ukraine features my reflections on Ukraine’s implication in a course on Power, Knowledge and Justice in Global Social Change along with my Twitter engagements here https://www.academia.edu/77183457/_PutinRussias_Invasion_of_Ukraine_Tweets_Since_2_24_22 (March 8, 2022) “Global Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine”. I organized a panel discussion of Brown University faculty https://watson.brown.edu/events/2022/global-implications-russias-invasion-ukraine including my own reflections. (February 2, 2022) “When It Comes to Russia and Ukraine, Nothing Is Simple” an interview by Dan Richards with me in Trending Globally https://trending-globally.captivate.fm/episode/michael-kennedy (September 1, 2021) An interview with G. Wayne Miller for the Providence Journal (plus video) on the comparison between 9/11/01 and the Covid-19 Pandemic https://www.providencejournal.com/in-depth/news/local/2021/09/01/covid-pandemic-9-11-attacks-cultural-change-generations-disparities-distorted-narratives/5378530001/ (September 9, 2020) An interview with BBC on the Belarus Crisis https://watson.brown.edu/news/2020/maria-kolsnikova-detained-ukrainian-border-interview-michael-kennedy (August 27, 2020) A video reflection for a Polish foundation, Centrum Historii Zajezdnia, on the meanings of solidarity, comparing Poland’s movement in 1980-81 and Black Lives Matter (July 17, 2017) “Sexual Violence as a Strategy of War” – an interview with Linda Gusia and Michael D. Kennedy by Sarah Baldwin in the Podcast Trending Globally https://soundcloud.com/watsoninstitute/e21-gusia-kennedy (March 19, 2017) “What Does It Mean To Be a White Ally?” at the First Unitarian Church in Providence, Rhode Island http://www.rifuture.org/video-michael-kennedy/ (March 12, 2014 on Ukraine) – an interview with Anna Lysyanskaya and Michael D. Kennedy on State of Mind with Dan Yorke http://wpri.com/2014/03/12/312-brown-univ-professors-on-state-of-mind/ Editorials and Other Brief Comments and Interviews, and Forwards (beyond Explicit and Extensive Reference to the Time of Trump) (forthcoming in 2024) “The Point of Public Intellectuals” Contexts https://contexts.org/ (forthcoming in 2023) “Public Sociology’s Expression: From Reagan to Trump, from the USA to Global Social Change” First Publics https://thesocietypages.org/firstpublics/ (September 11, 2023) a contribution to “Twenty-Two Years Later, What Is the Enduring Significance of 9/11? Rhode Islanders Reflect” Ocean State Stories https://oceanstatestories.org/twenty-two-years-later-what-is-the-enduring-significance-of-9-11-rhode-islanders-reflect/ (2023) “How Class, Community and Ideology Matter in Rhode Island’s First Congressional District 2023 Democratic Primary” https://steveahlquist.substack.com/p/michael-kennedy-how-class-community (2023) “Succeeding Cicilline: Which Democrat Does Rhode Island’s First Congressional District Want? https://steveahlquist.substack.com/p/succeeding-cicilline-which-democrat Harming Women and Democracy in the Name of Divine Authority” https://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2022/roevwade (2021) “Money and Movements Shaping an Election to the Rhode Island Senate” UpRise RI https://upriseri.com/michael-kennedy-senate-district-3/ (2020) kehal, prabhdeep singh, and Michael D. Kennedy. “Graduate Education and Academic Labor for Graduate Students during the Pandemic.” ASA Footnotes, 12. https://www.asanet.org/news-events/footnotes/may-jun-2020/professional-challenges-facing-sociologists/graduate-education-and-academic-labor-graduate-students-during-pandemic (2015) An autobiographical recollection about graduate student life at UNC-Chapel Hill https://sociology.unc.edu/michael-kennedy/ (July 29, 2015) “A Comparative and Historical Sociology of Alternative Futures” WebForum for the 2016 International Sociological Association meetings. http://futureswewant.net/michael-kennedy-comparing-alternative-futures/ (December 5, 2014) “Engaging Intellectuals and Politicians” University World News http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20141203123125417 translated into Spanish as “Comprometiendo a intelectuales y politicos” and published in El Quinto Poder http://www.elquintopoder.cl/ciudadania/comprometiendo-a-intelectuales-y-politicos/ January 13, 2015. (December 3, 2014) “Rethinking the Social Question: How Trade Agreements Inscribe Class Hierarchies on the Emerging Global Order” Stanford University Press Blog http://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/rethinking-the-social-question.html (March 7, 2014) “Solidarity with Ukraine against Putin’s Reality” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2014/03/solidarity-with-ukraine-against-putins-reality/#.Uxo5G17TM7B (March 5, 2014) “The West Should Stop Squirming and Put Sanctions on Russia” Michael D. Kennedy and Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr. The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/us-should-put-sanctions-on-russia (March 5, 2014) “If the West Stands Up to Putin, Russian Economy Will Pay Heavy Cost” Floyd D. Kennedy and Michael D. Kennedy Global Post http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/if-west-stands-putin-russian-economy-will-pay-heavy-cost (February 23, 2014 ) “Ukraine’s Bully Must Be Removed” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140223-michael-d.-kennedy-ukraines-bully-must-be-removed.ece (December 5, 2013) “Ukraine’s Nonviolent Revolution” Providence Journal http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20131205-michael-d.-kennedy-a-nonviolent-revolution-in-ukraine.ece (June 21, 2013) “Occupy Movements Around the World: How Is Brazil’s Different?” HuffPost (Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Michael D. Kennedy) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gianpaolo-baiocchi/occupy-movements-around-t_b_3480620.html (2012) Forward for Ernst Stetter, Karl Duffek, and Ania Skrzypek (eds.) Next Left: Building New Communities FEPS Belgium. (February 3, 2012) “Poles Rallying for Our Digital Freedom” Providence Journal B6 (editorial) http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub_detail.cfm?id=1148 (October 20, 2011) “An Ex-Premiere’s Plight and the Future of Ukrainian Freedom and Democracy” Providence Journal, B7 (editorial) http://www.watsoninstitute.org/news_detail.cfm?id=1580 (2010) a contribution to “New Media and the Reshaping of Religious Practice” in the Immanent Frame, http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/03/16/new-media-and-the-reshaping-of-religious-practice/#Kennedy (2009) “Public Spheres, Private Lives, and Roundtable Negotiations in 1989 and 2009” Transformations of the Public Sphere, http://publicsphere.ssrc.org (November 2, 2006) “MCRI Would Lower U-M to Mediocrity” (Michael D. Kennedy and Abigail Stewart) Ann Arbor News (editorial) (2006) Introductory comment for Zbigniew Libera Work from 1984-2004, a catalogue accompanying his exhibition at the University of Michigan School of Art and Design. (2005) “Cultural Politics and Globalization in East Central Europe” The Journal of the International Institute 13:1:7 (Michael D. Kennedy and Genevieve Zubrzycycki) (October 19, 2004) “Are Poles Bushmen?” Chicago Tribune (editorial) (2003) “International Biographies: A. Nihat Gökyiğit” The Journal of the International Institute 10:3:8-9. (2003) “An Introduction to Iraq: The Costs of War and the Risks of Peace”. The Journal of the International Institute 10:2:1. (2002) “Comment” on Burkhart Holzner, “Global Change and the Organizational and Intellectual Challenges for International Studies in the United States” Items and Issues: Social Science Research Council 3:3/4:8-9; and on “transitology”, p. 11. (2002) “Grounding Expertise” The Journal of the International Institute 9:2:12 (December 11, 2001) “FBI Interviews Feel Hauntingly Familiar” Detroit Free Press (editorial) (2001) “Introduction to Terrorism and Globalization” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 9:1:21 (2001) “The Yanomami and the Global University” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 9:1:7 (1995) “Social Movements and Social Change in a Globalizing World” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 3:1:2,6 (1995) “CSST Locating Conservatisms” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 3:1:4 (1995) Interview with Jadwiga Staniszkis “On the End of the Cold War and on Postcommunist Peripheral Capitalism” Periphery: A Journal of Polish Affairs. vol 1 #1: 19-21. http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~zbigniew/Periphery/No1/hybrids.html (1995) “CSST: Reflections and New Explorations” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 2:3:(19). (1994) “Advanced Study Center holds year-long seminar on Cold War” ii: The Journal of the International Institute 2:1:(1,4). (1994) “Craig Calhoun to Edit Sociological Theory” Footnotes, Newsletter of the American Sociological Association, 22:5:5. (December 6, 1990) “Poland’s Presidential Elections and Post-Communism” Swiat Polski (editorial) (June 8, 1989) “Is Poland Ready for Open Politics?” The New York Times (editorial) https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/08/opinion/is-poland-ready-for-open-politics.html Public Sociology in the Time of Trump (2015-21) Television Interviews and Recorded Presentations WPRI Newsmakers Political Roundtable on Donald Trump, February 17, 2017 https://www.wpri.com/news/newsmakers/newsmakers-2-17-2016-political-roundtable-on-president-trump/ Story in the Public Square on the Sociological Imagination, Globalizing Knowledge, and the Time of Trump, March 22, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5P88I4YuD0 on the fracturing of America’s public narrative December 22, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljCArD4FldE&feature=youtu.be State of Mind with Dan Yorke November 21, 2019. I met with Dan for two consecutive episodes to be broadcast on 11/21 and 11/22 to talk about the impeachment process and the politics of Ukraine. https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/dysom-11-21-2019-brown-university-professor-mike-kennedy/ and https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/dysom-11-22-2019-brown-university-professor-mike-kennedy/ October 9, 2019. In this episode, I talk about impeachment, the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, and the debate about Republican Responsibility not only to the country, but to their own party. https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dysom-10-9-2019-brown-university-professor-michael-kennedy (preparatory notes below the list of print publications). May 6, 2019. In this episode, I talked about the Mueller Report, AG Barr’s performance, and the significance of fear in defining Trump’s authority and weakness, magnifying the crisis of governance facing the USA https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/56-brown-university-s-prof-michael-kennedy-talks-barr-testimony-mueller-report-on-state-of-mind/1983601716 January 25, 2019. In this episode, I talked #TrumpShutdown, #PelosiPower, and how #GameOfThrones helps us understand why Trump needs a wall. https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/125-brown-university-professor-michael-kennedy-talks-government-shutdown-and-more-on-state-of-mind/1723835695 I’m glad we anticipated the end to the shutdown, “after this show airs”. May 6, 2019 “Brown University’s Prof. Michael Kennedy talks Barr testimony, Mueller report on State of Mind” https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/5-6-brown-universitys-prof-michael-kennedy-talks-barr-testimony-mueller-report-on-state-of-mind/ January 25, 2019 “On the Government Shutdown and More” https://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/125-brown-university-professor-michael-kennedy-talks-government-shutdown-and-more-on-state-of-mind/1723835695 June 13, 2018, “On the implications of the Singapore Summit and moral leadership” https://www.wpri.com/news/top-video/6-13-professor-michael-kennedy-opines-on-implications-of-singapore-summit-and-moral-leadership_20180619190335/1249212117 March 28, 2018, “Deciphering Trump’s Motivations, if any, on State of Mind” http://www.wpri.com/fox-providence/dan-yorke-state-of-mind/327-deciphering-trumps-motivations-if-any-on-state-of-mind/1085503501 November 2, 2017 “Security and Russia Studies Experts Dig Into Implications of Manafort, Gates Indictments on State of Mind” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/11/02/112-security-and-russia-studies-experts-dig-into-implications-of-manafort-gates-indictments-on-state-of-mind/ (with Tim Edgar) October 13, 2017 “Brown U sociologists analyze NFL, Sen. Corker’s dissension, tax plan on State of Mind” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/10/13/1013-brown-u-sociologists-analyze-nfl-sen-corkers-dissension-tax-plan-on-state-of-mind/ (with Hilary Levey-Friedman) September 12, 2017 “Brown U Professor Questions Why Bannon Agreed to TV Interview on State of Mind” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO6bAeUqAkA July 18, 2017 “Questioning Democracy in Crisis” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/07/19/718-questioning-democracy-in-crisis-on-state-of-mind/ (with Dan Cammarano) June 16, 2017 “Dissecting Law vs. Loyalty in the Time of Trump” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/06/16/616-dissecting-law-versus-loyalty-in-the-trump-era-on-state-of-mind/ (with Tim Edgar) March 21, 2017 “Brown University Sociologist Questions the Moment of President Trump’s Downfall” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/03/22/321-brown-university-sociologist-questions-the-moment-of-president-trumps-downfall-on-state-of-mind/ February 7, 2017 “Probing Comments on Putin’s State of Mind” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/02/07/27-probing-trumps-comments-on-putin-on-state-of-mind/ January 3, 2017 “Twitter Policy Transformations and Russian Hacking Analysis” http://foxprovidence.com/2017/01/03/13-twitter-policy-transformations-and-russian-hacking-analysis-on-state-of-mind/ Print/Blog: Compilation (2017) The Sociology of Trump Michael D. Kennedy and Maria Ortega Collaborative Scholarship (2018) Following 3 meetings in Belgium, South Africa, and Canada across 2016-17, under the chairmanship of Pascal Lamy: https://progressivepost.eu/prioritising-people-planet-new-agenda-global-progress/ Articles (2020) “The Cultural Politics Defining the 2020 Election” The Progressive Post https://progressivepost.eu/elections-analysis/the-cultural-politics-defining-the-2020-election (2020) “Fighting over America” for Chuck Brown’s On the Stump. Image Comics. https://www.onthestumpcomic.com/ (October 30, 2018) “Political Violence and Elections in Trumplandia” https://www.rifuture.org/political-violence-elections-in-trumplandia/ (October 21, 2017) “Democracy without Equality Has Led to Ubermensch Escapism” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/ubermensch-escapism/ (August 15, 2017) “Beyond the Streets in America’s Postmodern Civil War” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/beyond-the-streets-in-americas-postmodern-civil-war/ (July 19, 2017) “Not Even the Art of the Fool: Trump’s the Tsar’s Dupe” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/not-even-art-fool-trumps-tsars-dupe/ (June 15, 2017) “On the Rule of Law and the Rule of Loyalty: The Political Epistemics of Trump and Communism” Riot Material http://www.riotmaterial.com/rule-law-rule-loyalty-political-epistemics-trump-communism/#more-4120 (May 27, 2017) “Norm Eisen, the Indictment of Trump, and the Resilience of America” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/78143-2/ (May 26, 2017) “Culture, Power and Social Change in the Time of Trump” (an introduction to a series of student papers on the sociological imagination after Trump) RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/sociology-trump1/ (May 25, 2017) “The Impending Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RI Future http://www.rifuture.org/the-impending-legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ referenced in https://www.bookforum.com/article/17427 now available here: https://www.academia.edu/49277447/_The_Impending_Legitimation_Crisis_in_Trump_s_America_RI_Future_http_www_rifuture_org_the_impending_legitimation_crisis_in_trumps_america_ (March 2, 2017) “Trump’s Articulation of the Nation” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/trumps-articulation-of-the-nation/ (February 21, 2017) “The Conflicts and Contradictions Shaping Trump’s Legitimation Crisis” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/conflicts-contradictions-trump-legitimation-crisis/ (February 15, 2017) “The Looming Legitimation Crisis in Trump’s America” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/legitimation-crisis-in-trumps-america/ (February 3, 2017) “On Explaining Trump in the World: In Response to Maria Eugenia Plano and Paula Lugones” portions of this response can be found in Spanish in this interview: http://www.clarin.com/mundo/comportamiento-erratico-magnate-domesticado_0_SyovmDCdx.html (January 30, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #MuslimBan in Providence Rhode Island” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-the-muslimban/#.WJUw2rYrK8o (January 22, 2017) “Love, Solidarity and the #WomensMarch in Providence Rhode Island” Public Seminar http://www.publicseminar.org/2017/01/love-solidarity-and-the-womensmarch/#.WId0rrYrK8p (December 31, 2016) Interview Reponses with Dario Mizrahi in “Crece la alarma en Europa por un pais que se desliza hacia el autoritarismo” in Infobae (Argentina) http://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2016/12/31/crece-la-alarma-en-europa-por-un-pais-que-se-desliza-hacia-al-autoritarismo/ (November 22, 2016) “Recurrent and Resurgent Whiteness in the Time of Trump” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/recurrent-and-resurgent-whiteness-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 11, 2016) “Transformational Solidarity in the Time of Trump” Policy Trajectories http://policytrajectories.asa-comparative-historical.org/2016/11/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/#more-546 an extended version: http://www.rifuture.org/transformational-solidarity-in-the-time-of-trump/ (November 9, 2016) “Call It By Its Name” (on the Trump Victory) in http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/CommentaryNewPresident (September 27, 2016) “May Democracy Survive This Election” Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/PresidentialDebateCommentary (July 28, 2016) “The Politics of Progressive Identification and the DNC” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/politics-of-progressive-identification-dnc.html (July 21, 2016) “Ideology in the Time of Trump” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html (June 24, 2016) “Breaking a System Does Not Fix The Problems” Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs http://watson.brown.edu/news/explore/2016/FacultyCommentaryBrexit (April 25, 2016) “Bernie Sanders for Rhode Island” RIFuture http://www.rifuture.org/bernie-sanders-for-rhode-island.html (2015) “European Referendum, Übermensch Escapism, and Anglo-American-European Solidarity” Queries 8:66 http://watson.brown.edu/files/watson/imce/news/2015/Kennedy%2C%20Michael%20BEYOND%20EUROPE.pdf also available here: http://www.progressivepost.eu/eu-referendum-ubermensch-escapism-and-anglo-american-european-solidarity/