D-Day Reflections
A free preview of future subscriber-only content
Updated June 26, 2021
One of my top priorities with this newsletter is to deliver high quality information to readers of all backgrounds, regardless of their knowledge of economics or their disposable income. For this reason, I keep most of my articles free to read, no subscription necessary. However, I also want to reward the generosity of paying subscribers. Some readers expressed interest in non-economics related articles that focus more on politics in general, both so that I can keep newsletters on the political economy free to read, and so that we can discuss other important issues as a community. This is an example of what such future subscriber-only articles could look like.
Although the topics discussed in this article deviate from the usual focus on economic justice, no progress will be possible without a representative democracy which reflects the will of the people. I wrote an essay a year ago today regarding recent and historical assaults on democracy, before I even had a newsletter, reflecting on recent events at the time. I wanted to share this essay with you and provide some additional context, both so that these events are kept fresh in our collective memories, but also to get feedback about future premium content for subscribers.
If you would like to see more content like this, and would be willing to subscribe and support my writing to see it, or if you had something else in mind, please feel free to reach out and let me know either way. With that said, let us take a stroll through recent history to refresh our memories about what our nation faced around this month last year.
Recent Historical Context – 2020 and Early 2021
Last year, soon after the horrific murder of George Floyd, protests erupted across the United States and around the world. After descending into a White House bunker during the weekend, former President Trump emerged the following Monday – June 1, 2020 – to commit one of the most flagrant violations of the presidential oath of office in U.S. history.
As you can see throughout this video detailing the timeline of events, law enforcement personnel gassed, bludgeoned, fired “less-lethal” projectiles at, damaged the equipment of, and otherwise attacked peaceful protestors and journalists alike who were gathered near Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. While this violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was underway, former President Trump delivered a speech at the White House explaining why his administration’s Department of Justice was attacking – and why Trump wanted the Department of Defense to also attack – the cornerstones of our social contract.
Trump proclaimed himself to be the “president of law and order”, and that he was essentially declaring war on the citizens of the United States and the free press, or as Trump labeled journalists, the “enemy of the people”. He went on to say that he would be “dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting” in cities and states where mayors and governors apparently did not “dominate the streets” enough to his liking.
[Updated June 10, 2021] Soon before and throughout this speech, law enforcement officers began to attack journalists and protestors near Lafayette Square in an effort to clear the area. The original release of this article suggested that Trump ordered the attack, but a recent Inspector General’s report concludes that they did not find evidence directly connecting Trump to the attack. According to this report:
The evidence we [investigators] obtained did not support a finding that the USPP [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church. Instead, the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31.
Despite these findings, some facts are still in dispute. For example, the Legal Director for the ACLU of the District of Columbia, Scott Michelman, said in a recent statement:
The government has given various conflicting explanations for the shocking attack on civil rights demonstrators at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020. For instance, the day after the attack, the Justice Department said Attorney General Barr ordered it; now the Department of the Interior says he didn’t. The federal officials’ briefs in our ongoing lawsuit about the attack also offer inconsistent narratives. These shifting explanations cannot distract from the fundamental problem: The force used against the demonstrators at Lafayette Square was grossly excessive in relation to any conceivably legitimate purpose. Given the severity and coordinated nature of the attack, it cannot be chalked up, as the Interior Department now suggests, to confusion or miscommunications. The assault on the civil rights protesters was a clear violation of the Constitution, and the federal officials who ordered it and perpetrated it must be held accountable.
Beyond the disputed facts, other aspects of the report confirm prior suspicions. The report confirmed that many instances of officers’ use of force were unauthorized under their own rules of engagement. These instances of escalation include use of chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS) gas – a particular type of “tear gas” – and firing pepper balls at people. Against this backdrop of police brutality, Trump walked to a nearby church for a photo opportunity.
.jpg){kind=link}
This was the Trump administration’s response to protests that were “overwhelmingly peaceful” according to an ACLED study. According to their data, “In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.” Furthermore, in incidents where violence unfortunately did occur, the study concludes that “violent demonstrations [were] largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city.” In addition to this data, witness testimony also suggests that this was a peaceful gathering in Washington, D.C.
Major Adam DeMarco – a liaison between the D.C. National Guard’s “Task Force Civil Disturbance” and the U.S. Park Police at Lafayette Square – testified about his experience. According to DeMarco’s testimony, “Having served in a combat zone, and understanding how to assess threat environments, at no time did I feel threatened by the protestors or assess them to be violent.” In his opinion, “…the use of force against demonstrators in the clearing operation was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force.” Former President Trump’s response to a mostly peaceful movement was to essentially turn the streets of the United States into a battlefield.
The nation and the entire world collectively held their breath waiting to see whether the military would side with the U.S. Constitution and uphold their oaths, or side with a man who would crown himself monarch of a new nation without a social contract. There were several other voices speaking up and people writing almost immediately following the speech, but I distinctly remember feeling relieved when I saw the letter that former Secretary of Defense, and retired U.S. Marine Corps general, James Mattis wrote in response to Trump’s assault on democracy.
Because I think the Mattis letter is so important for every American to read, and it served as a basis for the essay I wrote days later, I included it in its entirety below. Let us read it together:
In Union There Is Strength
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand – one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values – our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens – much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict – a false conflict – between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis – confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path – which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals – will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.
James Mattis
General Mattis reminded our military servicemembers and civilians alike of the fundamental principles upon which our democratic republic was founded. Military and civilian leadership had to weigh their constitutional duty to uphold our social contract on one side, and calls from the Trump administration to “dominate the battle space” – as former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper put it – on the other. Governors only sparingly activated the national guard during protests, but tensions increased throughout 2020 regarding increased military involvement domestically.
It eventually got to the point that the U.S. military eventually had to issue a public statement assuring the nation and the world that the military would not intervene in our free and fair elections. During this Congressional hearing, General Mark Milley – chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – further declared that he “will not follow an unlawful order” from a lawless commander-in-chief. Trump’s assault on democracy is well documented, and we cannot allow ourselves to forget how narrowly we avoided disaster.
Despite many of our institutions withstanding such tests of their mettle, Trump’s assault on democracy did not end last year, as the attempted coup of January 6, 2021 proved. At least now we can take steps towards reuniting as a country without him, like General Mattis suggested. The efforts to reunite and preserve our democracy remain an ongoing process, which I will address in future articles, but let us first reflect on where we’ve come from before looking towards future events on the horizon.
[Author’s note: I added links, which were absent in the original, throughout the essay below to reference events I had seen at the time of writing. I added these links so that readers of this newsletter can remind themselves of last year’s events and learn more about the circumstances if interested. While I am certainly no historian, I wrote most of the World War II history section based on what I could remember from reading sections of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer and by double checking dates and other details on Wikipedia. Author’s notes throughout the essay below were written on June 6, 2021.]
D-Day Reflections
Originally written on June 6, 2020
To my fellow Americans and everyone around the world who wants to make meaningful progress at this pivotal moment in history, I would like to share some thoughts with you. I hope you will join me in reflecting upon our shared history, current events, and steps we can take to make the world a better place…
When tragic events befall our nation, I often look to historical precedents for guidance, context, and reflection. On the anniversary of D-Day, I wanted to look back at twentieth century history in an effort to glean insight that might help guide us in the days to come during this new decade in the twenty-first century.
On June 6th, 1944, Allied forces landed in Normandy, France and began the liberation of the occupied nation from Nazi Germany. France had been occupied by an army controlled by Adolf Hitler, who rose to power as Chancellor of the Weimar Republic – post-WWI Germany – by fooling German workers into believing he would represent their interests while surreptitiously taking funding from and furthering the goals of industry magnates who would later profit from the construction of the Wehrmacht, the Nazi German war machine.
Once Chancellor, Hitler seized absolute power after two key events: issuance of the Reichstag Fire Decree, and the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. Only four weeks after Hitler was made Chancellor, the Nazi party planned an arson attack on the Reichstag, the legislative house for the Weimar Republic, which they could then claim was masterminded by a Dutch communist. The burning was further blamed on the communists of Germany in general, and labeled by the Nazi party as the beginning of a communist revolution.
Following the burning of the Reichstag, the Reichstag Fire Decree “suspended” civil rights including habeas corpus (which involves lawful imprisonment), the freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly, and the privacy of communications. In order to quell this non-existent communist revolution, Hitler demanded that the German Cabinet (unilaterally controlled by Hitler) needed absolute power to enact legislation, regardless of whether the new laws deviated from or fundamentally altered their Constitution, thereby effectively eliminating the legislative branch of their government. Thus, the Enabling Act was passed, giving Hitler the ability to unilaterally create laws as he saw fit.
Between 1933 and June 6th, 1944, an inexpressibly pernicious tragedy unfolded across the world, and persisted until Hitler died while cowering in a Berlin bunker in 1945.
Seventy-six years [author’s note: seventy-seven years as of June 6, 2021] after the Allied invasion of Normandy, the citizens of the United States of America find themselves at the precipice of a fundamental crossroads at which we must all ask ourselves:
“What type of a nation are we?”
Do we believe that all people are created equal? Do we believe that our Creator endowed us with the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? Do we believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Read the Declaration of Independence and reflect upon Thomas Jefferson’s words while pondering this question.
Do we want our government to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity? Do we want to be protected from laws impeding the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government? Do we want to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, or protected by search warrants based on probable cause? Do we want the right to due process? Do we want the right to a fair and speedy trial by our peers, the right to be notified of accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and legal counsel? Do we want to be protected from excessive fines and bail requirements, and from cruel and unusual types of punishment? Read the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments while considering this question.
The past weeks and months [author’s note: the past year at this point] have shown us and indeed the entire world that the answers to some of these questions are not clear in the eyes of all Americans, and perhaps some never have been. We as a nation have never truly and fully lived up to the ideal of treating everyone as if they were born equal. While it is impossible to instantaneously erase the legacy of centuries of structural inequality and thus ensure greater parity of outcomes overnight, there are significant steps we can take immediately to ensure greater equality of opportunities available to all Americans, which then make meaningful progress towards more equal outcomes. Look to the mayors and governors who are promising change; see to it that they honor their promises, and help guide them by submitting thoughtful suggestions or amplifying suggestions with which you agree.
I want to live in an America in which George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Botham Jean, and other victims of police brutality would still be alive. I want to live in an America where they have the same opportunities that I have, the same access to education, social mobility, the same Constitutional rights and responsibilities to the law that we all as Americans should have. I want to live in an America where all citizens are protected from the health risks and economic consequences of pandemics, climate change, and other disasters, not where corporations and the wealthy are given taxpayer-funded golden parachutes while people of color, the working and middle classes, and other disadvantaged Americans disproportionately suffer.
However, we Americans and the entire world have also been shown that rights given to American citizens by the Constitution are not guaranteed unless our institutions uphold our system of checks and balances. As retired U.S. General James Mattis said in a statement this week [author’s note: the week of June 1, 2020]: “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved into the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding…” Yet when peaceful protests arose demanding this, the right to petition one’s government was violently snatched away. As General Mattis reflected: “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens…”
American rights have been violently snatched away by our government. Hundreds of videos filmed by protesters, journalists, and bystanders alike reveal that, in virtually every situation that becomes violent, law enforcement officers who are sworn to serve and protect the public are the initial instigators of brutal, unwarranted and often illegal violence. Rather than maintaining peace, there are clear instances where the police do not engage in violence to stop violent protesters; instead, police become violent as a way to engage in collective punishment of a peaceful public who has not violated any laws, but had the audacity to dare ask that everyone be treated equally under the law.
The police have also lied about the circumstances surrounding violence, despite the ubiquity of cameras at these protests. In Buffalo, a 75-year-old man was pushed by police officers, which caused him to fall and crack his head open on the pavement. Police seemed more concerned with surrounding and concealing the man’s fate from cameras than helping the man; how were they protecting this man? A woman was groped by an officer and subsequently beaten severely by multiple officers for reflexively pulling away, as if reacting in revulsion to sexual assault is akin to resisting arrest. A chilling question that comes to mind is, if they know they’re being filmed, then what do the police do when they’re not being filmed? The service of the police results in crimes committed against citizens far too often; they should protect the public, or they should find new jobs.
Once again quoting General Mattis, his prescription is similar: “We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.” We need to know that peaceful protests won’t go unheard; that they won’t be mocked by a President who is supposed to represent all Americans and not just the small minority of those who voted for him; that lawmakers will create legislation that takes meaningful steps towards a more perfect Union; and we need to know that our justice system will hold accountable those who break the law, while still protecting the rights of the accused.
It can’t be said that one hundred percent of all protesters in all protests have been completely peaceful, but the number of peaceful movements, including those by athletes and faith leaders, have not gotten sufficient coverage, nor has meaningful legislative progress been made until now, when all eyes are on this situation.
[Author’s note: Furthermore, in retrospect, I realize now that protests are inherently chaotic and disorganized, which can cause unpredictable outcomes, even if the vast majority are peaceful, as we discussed earlier. Law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, are trained, organized, and are often ordered to act in the ways that video evidence shows time and time again.]
If peaceful protests were to bring about meaningful changes, especially those changes necessary to begin healing such deep, societal wounds that we face now, then there is a much better chance that violence can be avoided in the future.
If the police want to argue that they fear for their lives, then they need to allow the public to view body camera footage to see the events unfold for themselves. The footage should be controlled and audited by independent organizations; citizens should be protected from face-recognition software and other nefarious side effects that such cameras could facilitate if abused unconstitutionally; there should be clear guidelines for when these cameras should be activated and how they should be operated; and there should be effective punishments for officers who do not comply. Otherwise, senseless police violence should not be tolerated, and we need clear rules surrounding how police are able to interact with protestors, like mayors and governors are proposing now.
Other unconstitutional laws which subvert the Fourth Amendment should be repealed, including the USA PATRIOT Act, and it should stop being reauthorized by establishment members of both parties. Warrants should be the bare minimum requirement for any authority that might encroach on Constitutional rights in this manner; it is unconscionable that warrantless wiretapping and Orwellian surveillance are occurring now. There should also be severe consequences for when officials knowingly or recklessly lie on applications for these types of warrants.
Echoing the words of the philosophers who inspired our Founding Fathers, like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, there is a breach in our social contract. The Constitution clearly outlines what the terms of our agreement are. If when the American people speak out when trying to illuminate a breach of our social contract, and are punished in ways that further break the social contract just for seeking a remedy, then this type of chaos is the expected result.
Alternatively, if we Americans are losing our rights, and stand to lose more rights but won’t find out we’ve actually lost them until we must depend upon those rights to protect us, then our future is bleak. History shows that societies who lose these types of fundamental rights go down paths most citizens would object to. Most Americans are good, honest, hard-working people who view the history of Germany in the 1930s and ‘40s as abhorrent cautionary tales of what can happen to republics which devolve into autocracy or oligarchy, where the citizens lose the ability to guide their governments, and must simply “follow orders”.
Most Americans honor the service of men and women who fought for our freedoms, including those who landed in Normandy seventy-six years ago today [author’s note: again, seventy-seven years now]. Most Americans watched sympathetically as Hong Kong stood up for their social contract with China. Hong Kong continues to stand against China, including on the recent anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy, and in solidarity with so many other countries around the world like those who are all protesting for similar reasons that Americans are. Despite the harsh reality that so many countries still face these problems, there is solace in knowing that there are good people everywhere.
We must come together as Americans and ensure that our Constitutional ideals are met, and that we do so by modern standards of equality for everyone under the law. Those who refuse to help bring about this type of more perfect Union should resign from and never again seek public office. Now that we Americans are paying attention to our social contract, we must also remain vigilant and ensure that elected officials keep their promises, or vote them out.
Men and women have fought and died for these Constitutional rights on our behalf, and on D-Day at T-Time, I hope that you, my fellow Americans, take some time and reflect upon what type of nation you want America to be.
Reflections with 2021 Hindsight
It is difficult to understate what crises were narrowly averted in the year since I initially wrote this essay, given how many terrible things still occurred. While the attempted coup of January 6, 2021 rightly received the most press, other tragedies flew under the radar, or may have been noticed at the time but currently run the risk of being forgotten, given the deluge of scandals and crises we’ve had to keep track of lately.
One such event that I certainly paid attention to, but have not seen widely mentioned in recent months, was the apparent extrajudicial killing in September of 2020 that Trump publicly acknowledged on multiple occasions. The victim, Michael Reinoehl, was a suspect in an Oregon shooting who claimed he acted in self-defense. I’m not a lawyer, but this sounds like the type of situation that a criminal court, forensic experts, and other institutions should sort out to determine whether a crime was committed. Instead, rather than justice being serviced, what followed was what Trump described as “retribution.”
At a Greenville, North Carolina event, Trump said that, “We sent in the U.S. Marshals, took 15 minutes, it was over. 15 minutes, it was over, we got ‘em. They knew who he was, they didn’t want to arrest him, and [after] 15 minutes, that ended…” He later said during a Fox News interview that, “This guy was a violent criminal, and the U.S. Marshals killed him. And I will tell you something, that’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution when you have crime like this.” I must have missed the part in the Constitution that mentions unilateral retribution, rather than due process and the right to confront one’s accusers.
The official statement by the U.S. Marshals contradicts Trump’s description of events, but it also raises questions when examined alongside witness testimony. According to the official statement, the Marshals “…attempted to peacefully arrest him. Initial reports indicate that the suspect produced a firearm, threatening the lives of law enforcement officers.” However, an investigation by Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica paints a different picture:
Witnesses we spoke to say they didn't see Reinoehl point a gun. Thurston County Sheriff Ray Brady - he's a lieutenant there - has overseen the investigation into the shooting. And here's what he told us.
RAY BRADY: “Our team recovered the gun in his front right pants pocket, and we're still working through a little bit of that.”
I highly recommend you read the linked articles and interviews if you want to know more about the events surrounding Reinoehl’s death, but suffice it to say that Trump’s statements and discrepancies between official statements and witness testimony warrant a closer look. Compare, for example, the official statement by Minneapolis Police immediately following the murder of George Floyd, and how much more was learned during his murderer’s trial. The official statement, which was titled “Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction”, said that Floyd inexplicably “appeared to be suffering medical distress.” There was no mention of an officer suffocating him for nine and a half minutes. If there is truth to what the U.S. Marshals initially reported, they should have the chance to have their entire accounting of events heard and otherwise defend themselves in court, but they should not be above the law, especially if we entrust them to be the ones who enforce the law.
Given how many tragedies we’ve witnessed and narrowly avoided, we also cannot allow ourselves to forget these events, and what may still happen if we do not remain vigilant. Like Bill Moyers wrote on June 5, 2020, regarding such events in the context of the fall of the Weimar Republic in Germany:
Can it happen here?
It is happening here.
Democracy in America has been a series of narrow escapes. We may be running out of luck, and no one is coming to save us. For that, we have only ourselves.
Though we are all understandably exhausted after these past four years, and particularly this last year, we must continue to keep each other informed in an effort to preserve democracy. I plan to do my part by writing more articles, and I would love to hear your feedback on which topics you’d like me to cover.
Future Articles
If this type of article covering broader political topics beyond economics interests you, or if you would prefer to see other subscriber-only content, please feel free to leave a comment and let me know your thoughts. I plan to release one more article for all readers about the ongoing efforts to preserve democracy in the United States, but I will also return to regular articles on the political economy soon as well. If you would like to support my writing and receive all future articles, please consider subscribing. Together, we can help preserve democracy, make it more accessible for all voters, and make this country and the world better places for everyone.
Thank you for reading my newsletter and taking the effort to learn about making the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can make progress towards a more just economy.
-JJ
Updated 6/26/2021 - Updated after news of Trump’s calls for violence surfaced on June 24, 2021. See this Corrections and Updates Sidenote for more details.
Updated 6/10/2021 - Updated after reviewing Inspector General’s report on June 1, 2020 events. See this Corrections and Updates Sidenote for more details.