WHAT DO VIRGINIA’S CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS HAVE TO DO WITH FOREIGN POLICY? Transcript
Introduction: 00:04 Nine, 12, 10, 28, 2, 23.
Introduction: 00:17 This is Deep State Radio, coming to you direct from our super secret studio in the third sub basement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington DC, and from other undisclosed locations across America and around the world.
David Rothkopf: 00:34 Hello. And welcome to another episode of Deep State Radio. I am David Rothkopf, and I am your host. And I am here in Los Angeles, California. And I am joined from Washington DC, our nation’s capital, home to Donal Trump, president of the United States and his entire crime family of associates. We have Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University Law School. And we have Evelyn Farkas of the German Marshall Fund. And ladies, I would like you to help me with a problem here to start things out. I’ve been a little bit confused and troubled by this incident of Representative Omar of Minnesota, who made a tweet saying, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” implying that AIPAC, the Israel lobby had essentially bought control of the Congress.
David Rothkopf: 01:31 And this led to a lot of pushback, saying that this was an antisemitic trope, including from Nancy Pelosi. And subsequently, Representative Omar has apologized for this. But I worry that there’s something bigger afoot here. And the bigger thing is that there is a generational shift occurring in US views towards Israel. And in this generational shift, if you go down and you look at polls, the younger you get, the less natural support there is for Israel. That’s translating into different kinds of views, particularly within the democratic party and parts that are responsive to younger people, but also less represented communities. And so there is this kind of effort to say if you are not in support of Israel, then you are antisemitic.
David Rothkopf: 02:24 And I’m oversimplifying it for the point of argument. But essentially, the people who have enjoyed almost reflexive support for Israel are trying to discredit having a more open, diverse discussion about Israel, which seems to me to be a mistake. But I just thought I’d bring both of you in to get your comments on it. Rosa.
Rosa Brooks: 02:47 Yeah. And I don’t actually think that there’s anything new about this, David. I think that it has been true, unfortunately for at least a couple of decades, that even the mildest criticism of Israeli government policy can get you jumped on for being anti Israeli and antisemitic. And I think we’ve all experienced it. I’m sure you have. I’m sure you’ve been called a self hating Jew many times.
David Rothkopf: 03:11 I’ve got called much worse than that.
Rosa Brooks: 03:14 Much, much worse, yes. And I think that, as I said, I don’t think there’s anything new about that. I know my brother, who has written a book about Palestinians, is constantly getting accusations of antisemitism. And nothing could be further from the truth. As you say, equating Israeli policies, which are largely fairly horrible, with antisemitism, or somehow with Jewishness, is a terrible mistake. The government policy and the culture and history and religion of a people are not the same thing.
Rosa Brooks: 03:57 That being said, I also think that undeniably there has been an upsurge in visible genuine antisemitism in this country and in other countries. And it’s coincided with the upsurge in visible forms of racism and visible forms of anti Muslim sentiment and visible forms of xenophobia in the Trump era. There have been an upsurge of people painting swastikas on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, et cetera, and that’s kind of scary.
Evelyn Farkas: 04:28 The attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.
Rosa Brooks: 04:31 Yeah. No, that’s absolutely right. And that’s quite frightening. And these things can be true at once, obviously. There can both be a continued and very toxic tendency to label as antisemitic, people who are legitimately critical of Israeli policies and an upsurge and genuine and frightening antisemitism. And I think unfortunately, that’s where we are right now.
David Rothkopf: 04:56 You bring up a good point there. Evelyn, the sight of the republican party expressing outrage at the antisemitism or a potentially antisemitic influenced comment of a freshman democratic congresswoman, when the president of the United States defends and is actively supported by Nazis, promotes antisemitic George Soros tropes all the time. I mean, are we supposed to buy this crap?
Evelyn Farkas: 05:34 It’s totally hypercritical. Remember also during the campaign, he had the Star of David on the money, like it was one of these campaign, I don’t know, pieces of literature that he was handing out. I mean, it was so blatantly antisemitic.
Rosa Brooks: 05:48 Oh, God. Yeah. I remember that one.
Evelyn Farkas: 05:51 This is really a problem because I feel like some republican operative decided. How are we going to use these two new Muslim Americans who are in Congress, especially the one wearing the scarf? Because she’s visibly showing her faith. How are we going to use them to our advantage and peel off support from the democrats? I see this as a really cynical play. Having said that, there are some real underlying political issues that are troubling. One, under President Obama, the government of Israel, and so here to some extent, our colleagues here in America and AIPAC, found themselves between a rock and a hard place be the Israeli, and they continue to be there, because the Israeli government led them to this place by really actively taking on a full frontal assault, in essence, politically against President Obama. They started to create a real rift in terms of how Israelis themselves regarded republicans versus democrats and the support that they got from the United States.
Evelyn Farkas: 07:07 And it doesn’t take very long for rank and file democrats and voters to pick up on this. I mean, just see how President Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu, treated President Obama under the two terms, and especially towards the end, that Obama held office. He was absolutely disrespectful. Those who were loyal democrats and who loved President Obama obviously took note. And the Israeli government has done nothing. In fact, they’ve exacerbated it since President Trump came into office because they’ve been absolutely pro Trump, again, largely driven by Prime Minister Netanyahu himself. But none of this helps Israel because you don’t want a US policy that’s partisan when it comes to Israel. You want a broad bipartisan support for Israel.
Evelyn Farkas: 07:58 And then on top of that you have the demographic changes. You have younger people who don’t remember World War II, who don’t personally certainly remember the Holocaust, and maybe don’t even know anyone who remembers is. Right? I mean, this is going to be a reality. You also have, as Muslim Americans become empowered, the other side of the debate, what to do about the Palestinians and the human rights that they have suffered, the human rights offenses that they have suffered because of their situation. It gets highlighted more. And so there’s a debate that isn’t … I don’t think it’s being … We’re seeing the beginning of something that could be an unhealthy debate. And I think we need to go back to educating Americans across the board. And I’ve said this also to AIPAC colleagues, that they’re in danger. The Israeli government is endangering their efforts and endangering, I think, frankly speaking, relations between the two countries.
David Rothkopf: 08:59 Well, yeah. You said we hopefully will have a bipartisan support for Israel. I don’t hope for that. I, who my father was a Holocaust survivor, escapee, and we lost a lot of family in the Holocaust, and have a lot of interest in the wellbeing of Jews and hopes for the idea of the state of Israel, at any rate. Don’t think that the state of Israel is entitled to bipartisan support from the United States. I think the state of Israel is entitled to the United States debating its national interests in the way that we debate anything else. And the fact that there are actually Muslim women in Congress who might have a different view, or there are Muslim Americans who might have a different view, or they’re just simply people who are repulsed and disgusted by a behavior of the Israeli government, vis a vis the Palestinians, suggests we need a much more robust debate.
David Rothkopf: 09:56 Not only is it hypercritical for the president and his party to go after this congresswoman for her statement, which she has subsequently retracted, and the democratic party renounced in a way the republicans have not renounced the statements of Trump and those close to him. But above and beyond that, it worries me that we’re going to get into this situation where, and the democrats may put themselves in the situation too, where you’re not allowed to speak ill of Israel.
David Rothkopf: 10:28 And that there’s a kind of a red line, and it’s not politically acceptable to speak the truth about this country. And that reminds me, Rosa, of the situation with Saudi Arabia right now, where the Saudis have said, “This is a red line. You must not speak of our leaders.” And by the way, our president and his toady of a secretary of state are going along with that to the point that they are ignoring Magnitsky Act requirements that they respond to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in a certain way. But the Saudis are saying, “Sorry. This is a line in our relationship. If you start getting critical, we’re going to have a real problem with you.” What is up, Rosa?
Rosa Brooks: 11:12 You know David, I think that one of the slogans that used to be used by Mothers Against Drunk Driving should equally apply to foreign policy. Remember the old 1980s anti drunk driving campaign, the slogan was friends don’t let friends drive drunk. I think that this applies to foreign policy too, that friends don’t let friends abuse human rights. Friends don’t let friends make stunningly stupid mistakes. That part of the job of being an ally is to say to your friends sometimes, “Hey, that’s not a good idea. That’s bad. You shouldn’t do that. We’re really upset.”
Rosa Brooks: 11:47 And the idea that anything should be off limits between allies, I think sort of undermines the very idea of what it means to be allies in the first place. We don’t want allies who are not interested in hearing anything that contradicts their official line. We want allies who are a recognition that nobody’s perfect, one of those [inaudible 00:12:10] as a recognition that we all need help sometimes. We all make mistakes sometimes. Needless to say, President Trump seems particularly drawn to leaders who take a my way or the highway approach. And if it’s not my way, in fact, it’s the highway of death approach. There’s nothing surprising here, but it’s a very bad idea.
David Rothkopf: 12:36 I think the flip side of that, Evelyn, is that we have plenty of allies with whom we are close, who have policies we don’t agree with. Or we should at least have a debate about. No one would argue that we shouldn’t be debating whether Brexit is a good idea for Britain or not, even if the government of Great Britain is in support of this absolutely insane policy. And similarly, there are plenty of people in the government, not the president, but others, who might take issue with the fact that, for example, the Italians are taking a horrible stance towards refugees, or the Hungarians are, or whatever. We’re allowed to have-
Evelyn Farkas: 13:16 Or that that Japanese are naively trying to negotiate with Putin over the disputed islands.
David Rothkopf: 13:22 Right. But the point is, in all those relationships, we’re allowed to, we’re expected to have differences. But in this special class of relationships, they fear it. And I think the reason they fear it is they’re vulnerable because they’ve done something really wrong, whether it’s the Saudis murdering Khashoggi, or laying waste to Yemen. Or it’s the Israelis abusing the human rights of Palestinians, and denying them the right to their own state. Right?
Evelyn Farkas: 13:55 And also, going beyond international agreements about settlements.
David Rothkopf: 14:00 Yeah. Just beyond international agreements, but also beyond international norms of behavior. But the Israelis behave this way, by the way, in the United Nations all the time, where if anybody criticizes them, they’re immediately accused of being antisemitic, and it’s awful, and you can’t do that. And it’s like, if you want to be a nation, you’ve got to play by the rules of the other nations. Right?
Evelyn Farkas: 14:26 And it just backfires because then when nations, or leaders, or individuals, are antisemitic, nobody pays attention anymore, so that’s a really dangerous game to play. Yeah. I have to say I found this whole attack on this representative to be really unfortunate. Hopefully when we get to 2020, we’ll hear democratic candidates voicing sober, smart, thoughtful, and partially critical perspectives on policy towards Israel.
David Rothkopf: 15:06 Yeah. You can’t help but note, Rosa, that it also, it’s consistent with Trump’s view of himself as somebody who … He keeps referring to himself as the best president ever. I work harder than the best president ever. It’s kind of amazing. I work harder than any president. I brush my teeth longer than any president. I chew my food more often than any president. He’s in a [inaudible 00:15:32] place.
Evelyn Farkas: 15:32 He’s sick. Sorry.
David Rothkopf: 15:32 He is sick.
Rosa Brooks: 15:36 If only he could be persuaded to be in human rights more than any president, or champion honesty and integrity more than any president, rather than champion all the horrible things he usually uses to champion. I do think actually, just a comment, I wasn’t closely following this brouhaha over Representative Omar’s tweet. I sort of missed that one. And in the world of Twitter, as we know, if you stop paying attention for 27 seconds, multiple cycles of memes pass you right by. But I do think that … I’ve been thinking this a lot because I think all of us have at one point or another been told on Twitter that we’re terrible people. And I’ve been thinking about this. So she apologized, which seems appropriate. And she apologized and she said, “Antisemitism’s real. And I’m grateful for my Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on this painful history of antisemitic tropes.”
Rosa Brooks: 16:47 And I actually think that in American political culture, very much on the left as well as on the right, maybe even more on the left, that we have to get a little bit better at accepting people’s imperfections and apologies, at tolerating the fact that sometimes people are going to screw up. And more important than being a person who never screws up, never says anything ignorant, never says anything up obtuse, never offends anybody, is being a person who can learn from your mistakes, and who can be self aware and who can listen to other people and hear. You may not have meant it this way, but here’s how it came across, and being able to sort of go, “Oh, wow. I need to do something different.” I think we are often much too quick to just eviscerate people. And that’s a bad characteristic. We all have to get better at being willing to let people apologize.
Evelyn Farkas: 17:43 I like that.
David Rothkopf: 17:46 Yeah. No, it’s true. The notion that people could somehow grow from political discourse by virtue of saying things, listening to other people’s responses and evolving should not be quite as revolutionary as it is.
Evelyn Farkas: 18:00 But that begs the question, if I could put Rosa on the spot. How do you think that applies to Governor Northam?
Rosa Brooks: 18:11 Yeah. It’s a hard one. Most of the media attention is focused on the picture of [inaudible 00:18:23] in blackface. To me, the thing that was actually more shocking and surprising to me has received less commentary, was the juxtaposition of somebody in blackface with somebody dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit.
Evelyn Farkas: 18:36 Yeah.
Rosa Brooks: 18:38 You know, I actually find it plausible and forgivable that as a young man, who grew up in the American South, that Ralph Northam really didn’t realize why and how deeply blackface was hurtful and offensive. I think that on that one, I feel kind of like, all right. A lot of people knew then, but maybe you didn’t. It’s never too late to learn, and you’re sorry and okay. What bothers me more is that by 1984 or 1985, there was nobody who didn’t understand that the Ku Klux Klan was not okay, that the juxtaposition of cruel, comical representation of an African American with a representation of someone in a costume associated with lynchings and slaughter and terrorization of African Americans, I don’t know how you say, “Who knew?” about that one. I’m not thrilled with his response. I don’t think he has handled this particularly well. Sorry, David. Go ahead.
Evelyn Farkas: 19:51 That’s a really good point, though.
David Rothkopf: 19:52 I was just thinking as you were talking. And nobody’s said this before. But if Northam had appeared wearing a big giant nose and little hair on the side of his … Curly hair like an Orthodox Jew, and dressed up as an Orthodox Jew or something, how long do you think his career would last?
Evelyn Farkas: 20:23 You think it would be different?
David Rothkopf: 20:23 It would be instantly over. The organized outcry would be … He would be obliterated. There’s no way he could survive that. I mean, Trump gets away with some of this stuff. A governor, can you imagine a governor? Oh, yeah. He just dressed up as a stereotype of a Jew. But somehow, people say, “Well, a lot of people did this about black people.” To me, it’s not forgivable.
Rosa Brooks: 20:58 I think it’s a really hard one. And I think if he did it today, obviously it would be very different than doing it in the 1980s. I think people are allowed to have learning curves in their lives. And nations are allowed to have learning curves. So that’s why I say, in many ways, I’m much more troubled by his response now and in the immediate hours and days right after this came out than I am, in some ways, by what he did 30 years ago, which was offensive and upsetting, but I think people get second chances. I think he’s in the process of blowing his second chance.
David Rothkopf: 21:46 I also have to say, people should get second chances. But it depends on what it is they want to do with their second chances. If you’re supposedly representing all the people of a state, and you’re in a political job, and that state has a history of civil rights problems, maybe that’s not the place you get to have the second chance. You’re representative of a democratic party that’s supposed to be standing up against a republican party that is notably racist, maybe you don’t get that. Maybe you should go and be a car dealer. You maybe go and write a book or something.
Evelyn Farkas: 22:23 Yeah. And if you really care about the lesson, if you really understand why it’s wrong, and I actually think Rosa makes a fantastic point. I mean, really, people should be much more outraged about the white figure in that photo. But the fact that he wants to hold onto power because he thinks he can fix it actually shows that maybe he hasn’t quite absorbed the lesson because by being forced to resign, that actually probably would provide more hope to African Americans that finally things are changing. And he can certainly, as a private citizen, do everything he wants to help address racism in Virginia.
Rosa Brooks: 23:09 No. There is a tremendous arrogance, a sort of form of, well, no one can do without me. I, and I alone can lead this state forward. I have to admit during the Virginia gubernatorial primary, I was a big supporter of his opponent, Tom Perriello.
Evelyn Farkas: 23:31 Right. You know Tom.
Rosa Brooks: 23:33 Yeah. We all know Tom, and Tom is a terrific guy. And I’m quite sure that Tom didn’t ever dress up in blackface. I certainly hope he didn’t. But I’m inclined to doubt it because Tom has been an activist for really his entire adult life. So I can’t help wishing that this had come out during the primary because I think Tom Perriello would be government of Virginia, and not Ralph Northam. I think that, needless to say, the problem in Virginia right now, there was this one moment where it sort of looked like there could be this beautiful solution, which when it was just Northam. And you thought, “Okay. Well, step down. Do the right thing.”
Rosa Brooks: 24:14 Say, “You’re right. I am sad about this. But I guess I’m not the guy to lead Virginia right now. And I’m going to step down. And my good friend, democratic lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax will therefore become governor. And, oh by the way, it just so happens that he’s an African American. And symbolically, it would be very nice to have the downfall of a white male governor over a racist image lead to the second African American governor of Virginia being installed.”
Rosa Brooks: 24:47 Then of course, everybody’s skeletons started popping out of closets. And we now have Justin Fairfax facing two allegations of sexual assault. And we now have the attorney general, Mark Herring, who’s third in the line of succession. Oops, it turns out he used to wear blackface too. Whoops. So the next in line is a republican. And the republican party in Virginia is really horrible and racist. So it’s a little bit of a dilemma because my initial reaction was Ralph Northam should resign, and it should be Justin Fairfax. Then my reaction was, well, maybe Justin Fairfax should resign. It’ll be Herring. And then I was like, “Uh oh. What comes next here?” I’m not [crosstalk 00:25:42] have a republican.
David Rothkopf: 25:43 I have a very unpopular view on this front. And that is-
Rosa Brooks: 25:45 What’s that?
David Rothkopf: 25:46 They should all resign.
Evelyn Farkas: 25:48 I agree with you. It’s popular.
Rosa Brooks: 25:50 And get a republican democrat. Then we get a republican governor.
David Rothkopf: 25:55 Then you do.
Evelyn Farkas: 25:55 Those are the rules.
Rosa Brooks: 25:57 Maybe they’ll do even more damage.
David Rothkopf: 25:59 I understand. But principles matter. I think Al Franken should’ve resigned when he resigned under pressure. I think that there should be standards within the party. I think if you’re going to stand up for the standards, you have to stand up for the standards. That’s what happened with Representative Omar. I think, by the way, it’s more likely at this point that the Lieutenant Governor Fairfax is going to have to resign than it is that Northam is. And then you’re going to have the spectacle of the African American having to resign and not the white guy.
Evelyn Farkas: 26:34 Which makes me think. Where’s the adult supervision of these people? I mean, Tom Perez, or whoever’s supposed to be the adult, Terry McAuliffe. Who is it who can say, “Hey, guys. Listen. Pull yourselves together. You’ve all got to resign”? Be a statesman.
David Rothkopf: 26:53 Every leader in the democratic party, every leader said Northam had to resign.
Evelyn Farkas: 26:55 I know, but nobody apparently has the ability to make it stick.
David Rothkopf: 26:59 No, it’s true. But you know-
Evelyn Farkas: 27:00 You know why? Because Northam isn’t running.
Rosa Brooks: 27:02 When Virginians-
Evelyn Farkas: 27:03 One problem with term limits, not necessarily-
Rosa Brooks: 27:08 And Virginians seem divided. And the African American community in Virginia seems divided. I don’t know. Maybe I’m being overly pragmatic. But as I said, I think that there does need to be some room for apologies. Northam himself may have blown his second chance. But maybe for some of these other guys, I don’t know. We have to see what the facts seem to be in the coming days. But having a republican government of Virginia at this point I think would be a complete disaster for the values that Virginia democrats care about. And the republican party in Virginia recently fielded a candidate who was explicitly racist and pro confederate. It is not clear. At some point, David, it’s easy to say, “Yeah. They should all resign.” But it’s not clear to me that it better serves the values of anti racism in Virginia to end up with a republican governor for the next four years.
David Rothkopf: 28:06 That’s right. And that’s why I think the thing that should happen is that Fairfax should resign. Northam should appoint a better person as lieutenant governor, maybe Tom Perriello. And then Northam-
Evelyn Farkas: 28:17 And then he resigns.
David Rothkopf: 28:18 Then Trump resigns.
Rosa Brooks: 28:18 That would be nice.
Evelyn Farkas: 28:19 Yes. I love it. David.
Rosa Brooks: 28:21 I hope that’s doable.
Evelyn Farkas: 28:22 Oh my God. That’s great.
Rosa Brooks: 28:23 That would be lovely.
David Rothkopf: 28:24 I think that actually is legally doable.
Rosa Brooks: 28:28 Or some, yeah.
David Rothkopf: 28:29 There’s a bigger problem here. And I didn’t know how we got into domestic politics here. But why not?
Rosa Brooks: 28:33 My fault.
David Rothkopf: 28:34 But Rosa, how far is your home from a highway called The Jeff Davis Highway?
Rosa Brooks: 28:41 It is not called The Jeff Davis Highway anymore.
David Rothkopf: 28:45 That is not correct, Rosa.
Rosa Brooks: 28:47 No, no, no. The street signs have now changed to Alexandria.
David Rothkopf: 28:51 Exactly. Excuse me. In Alexandria, the street signs have changed. But not in Arlington. So you are about a mile. You are about a mile from where it says, “The Jeff Davis Highway.”
Rosa Brooks: 29:06 I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that Arlington hadn’t changed their street signs.
David Rothkopf: 29:09 No, they have not. And there is a big confederate statue in the middle of downtown Alexandria. And there are monuments galore to the Robert E. Lee family, Robert E. Lee, who is a … And there are 200 monuments to confederates in Virginia. There’s 600 in the country. 200 of them are in Virginia.
Evelyn Farkas: 29:30 Wow. Holy moly.
David Rothkopf: 29:32 And Virginia is a deeply racist state. And it tries to gloss over it because there’s some people in northern Virginia who aren’t like that. And Thomas Jefferson freed Sally Hemmings when he died. The problem that this is about is much bigger than these three guys.
Rosa Brooks: 29:59 Yeah. No question about that.
David Rothkopf: 30:02 Okay.
Evelyn Farkas: 30:02 You’re talking about Saudi Arabia.
David Rothkopf: 30:05 That’s where I was going with this in the first place.
Rosa Brooks: 30:08 But David, there is a point that relates to international issues here, which is that many countries that have experienced massive human rights abuses have made at least some effort to grapple with them through prosecutions or through truth and reconciliation commissions. And I’m far from the first person to say it, but the US in many ways has never full reckoned, or acknowledged, or come to terms with, a past in which American wealth and prosperity was built upon slavery and the systematic oppression of millions of human beings. And I think that here’s an area where we actually have something to learn from quite a lot of other countries. And I don’t mean to suggest that there’s some sort of facile, simple solution of, you have a truth commission and everybody ends up hugging. And then we don’t have to worry about racism or the legacy of slavery anymore. It’s clearly not that simple.
Rosa Brooks: 31:13 But I always remember what Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian politician and author, said about the South African Truth Commission. And he said, “It didn’t necessarily find the truth. But it narrowed the range of permissible lies.” And I think that when it comes to states like Virginia, we need something like that because there are still all kinds of lies that are permissible in Virginia politics, and permissible in many other parts of the deep South. And one of those lies is that the Civil War and waving the confederate flag is about heritage, not hatred, and so on. And in fact, the historical record shows that those monuments, they don’t date from right after the Civil War. They date for the most part from the 1920s and ’30s and ’40s and ’50s, when the fear of desegregation was rising. [crosstalk 00:32:10].
Evelyn Farkas: 32:10 Can I jump in though?
Rosa Brooks: 32:11 Absolutely.
Evelyn Farkas: 32:12 I want to link this to foreign policy.
Rosa Brooks: 32:14 Yes, go for it.
Evelyn Farkas: 32:14 Because I wrote a piece published, it might’ve been 2017 in The Hill, and it was on the need for to examine reparations. It was right before … Oh, my gosh. I forget the name of the congressman who then was got caught up in the me too. And so he lost his job. Conyers, John Conyers. But every congress, John Conyers would introduce a piece of legislation basically asking for a study by the executive branch of the potential for reparations. So basically, the injustices that have been visited upon African Americans over time, the persistence of racism, and the possibility of reparations. And one of the things that I called for in this piece, as somebody who obviously doesn’t have much of a pedigree when it comes to domestic politics, but I do have one when it comes to national security.
Evelyn Farkas: 33:04 And because of all of this Russian interference, which of course was predated by Soviet interference, taking full advantage of our weaknesses, taking full advantage of our very sorry history, and the continued injustices that exist today. Russians and others can take advantage, use our social media, and further divide us against one another. Right? And weaken our democracy. And so it was sort of with that entrée to the subject that I said, “We ought to look at really: What can we do to better address the injustices? Consider reparations. We should start with looking at the GI bill.”
Evelyn Farkas: 33:46 We had African Americans serve in World War II. Many of them came home. They should’ve had the right to education or tuition reimbursement, and also to help with mortgages. So there’s a whole package under the GI Bill. Some of them could not take advantage because of persistent racism, especially depending on where they were living. If they were living, for example, in some parts of Chicago, where they had the red line laws, where you couldn’t actually get a mortgage. You couldn’t actually buy a house. Things like that, there are small steps that could be taken now. And I do think it’s high time for us to really look at this issue across the board.
David Rothkopf: 34:24 Well, all these issues. I mean, Rosa, in the long telegram, the last two paragraphs are, if we’re going to defeat the Soviets, we have to begin at home. Our strength has to begin at home. Not only does this give us strength around the world, but to the extent to which we fail at home, it gives ammunition to our enemies. I think that goes further, to the extent to which we don’t honor the rule of law, to the extent to which we suppress freedom of the press, to the extent to which our president is allowed to get away with crimes. It opens the door to other places. And these things are not disconnected.
Rosa Brooks: 35:17 No, absolutely not. And the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and indeed even the Supreme Court’s ruling to at least end jury segregation in Brown versus Board of Education, were directly related to Cold War awareness, that the Soviets were using American racism and Jim Crow laws on segregation against us in international domain in terms of successfully being able to say to many people in various African countries, in [inaudible 00:35:54] America, “Hey. Do you trust the Americans? They think people like you should not be able to share the same drinking fountains as you.” That was a compelling argument for many around the world. And that is in part what put pressure on the Johnson administration. And even some of the Supreme Court justices were clearly very aware of that. I think no question now as then, when America abandons its commitment to human rights, when we suggest to the world that not only are we no longer moving forward, but that we’re perfectly happy to move backwards, we sabotage our own interests. And we make it easier for our adversaries to gain adherence and support.
David Rothkopf: 36:43 Let me ask you a question. This subject’s going to come as a big shock to you, given the nature of our conversation. But Saudi Arabia, which we’ve been trying to get to for the past 30 minutes. We have three minutes left. The government of Saudi Arabia of course has said, “There’s a red line.” We can’t talk about their leadership. But meanwhile, at the same time, our intelligence community has come to the conclusion, and foreign people, close sources have come to the conclusion that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was behind this murder of this American resident. And that should’ve triggered action by this government under the Magnitsky Act. And the government just said, “No. We’re not going to do that.” And Pompeo went and made some remarks about, well, you know. If we discover something new, then we’ll deal with it. But this is also, that’s a law.
Evelyn Farkas: 37:40 Right.
David Rothkopf: 37:41 The White House is just ignoring the law. Now Rosa, isn’t that a constitutional crisis? I ask Rosa this on every episode.
Rosa Brooks: 37:51 Constitution.
Evelyn Farkas: 37:52 I know. It’s great.
Rosa Brooks: 37:55 It would be a constitutional crisis if congress wants to turn it into a constitutional crisis, which frankly, on some level they should. Right? This has always been the case with when you get conflicts between branches of government. The Supreme court and other US courts tend to take a pass and say, “It’s a political question to get worked out politically. There’s no legal or judicial resolution to this. But step one in a political conflict is for both branches to act like they care. And at the moment, we’re still waiting to see if Congress is actually going to step up. What Congress can do and what Congress has done in the past is deny funding for various other efforts as a tool to get the … If the administration is ignoring them, ignoring legislation previously passed, Congress has the ability to make the administration’s life extremely difficult. That tool is a blunter weapon in the age of Trump, since he seems perfectly willing to shut down indefinitely in a fit of peak. But that’s the tool.
Rosa Brooks: 39:08 During the 1980s when Congress refused to authorize any funding for the Nicaraguan Contras, that’s what led us to Oliver North and various dirty tricks, efforts to get around that. But the point is that there was something that they had to get around. And it was a very significant barrier, and it led to eventually indictments and some prison time, although not as much for as many people as it should have. Yeah, it’s yet another brick in the road on the path to constitutional crisis. But not quite there yet, David.
David Rothkopf: 39:41 But on the other hand, it does [crosstalk 00:39:42].
Rosa Brooks: 39:42 What I really want to know, I really want to know is what is this business about Saudi Arabia and Jeff Bezos? That’s really weird.
David Rothkopf: 39:51 Yes. Well, what is it, Evelyn? What is this?
Evelyn Farkas: 39:54 Well, we don’t really know. I mean, he intimated, I don’t know if it was his letter or something verbal he said, that perhaps a foreign source was used to get the salacious pictures, or the below the belt pictures of himself that he sent to his lover, Lauren Sanchez. The layers to David Pecker and AMI, so the National Enquirer, basically said, “No. That’s not the case. Actually, the person who gave them this information … ” Now I don’t know if this information includes, of course, the photos. But in any event, is someone known to both Miss Sanchez and Jeff Bezos. It’s possible that there was more than one source. It’s possible that the brother-
David Rothkopf: 40:43 And there was a Daily Beast story, and then several others that have suggested it was her brother.
Evelyn Farkas: 40:49 Correct. And his name is David Sanchez. And so it’s possible that he was the one who tipped off the National Enquirer, so AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer. But it doesn’t rule out the fact, or the possibility that maybe they called their friends in Saudi Arabia and said, “Hey. You guys also have it in for Jeff Bezos. Why don’t you see if you can use some of your state assets to get into his phone and get those photos?” Now I think it was the lawyer, again, for the National Enquirer, or somebody along the way said, “Well, there’s no evidence of hacking of his phone.”
Evelyn Farkas: 41:28 But in any event, it’s possible I don’t really … I guess what’s interesting about it, maybe let me just say that it’s sort of plausible in this crazy world we live in, where we have the administration fighting, or Donald Trump fighting literally, not just for his political life, but probably for his freedom against Robert Mueller and an investigation that involves certainly foreign interference by the Russians, but possibly also the UAE and Saudi Arabia, although maybe not quite as blatant and not directly the way they interfered to help Donald Trump become president.
Evelyn Farkas: 42:11 Nevertheless, there are also the corruption allegations, which are being dealt with, it appears mainly in New York, maybe in Florida as well. But the ones pertaining to Saudi Arabia, I think would be Washington DC, New York, the emoluments issues. There, the Saudis also of course are aligned with Donald Trump. So it’s not out of the realm of the possible that Saudi Arabia has an interest in making sure the truth doesn’t see the light. And of course, the Washington Post is one of the biggest purveyors of the truth to the American people today on both the issues of foreign interference politically and foreign interference through corruption.
David Rothkopf: 42:53 Well, that was a very good summary. And I hope Rosa, that answered your question. Although I don’t think we know the full answer because it’s going to take a little investigating where this info came from, and the notion that somehow the AMI, which accepted all this money from the Saudis and did this weird supplement for the Saudis and so forth, and who’s managed a relationship with the Saudis, also suggests that there are more shoes to drop. In any event, we’re run out of time. And so I would like to thank Evelyn. And I’d like to thank Rosa. I’d like to thank all of you for joining us. And I would like to encourage you to join us again sometime soon, or visit thedsrnetwork.com and listen to our other podcasts including Washington for Beautiful People, or National Security Magazine, which has gotten to be great. And every week has somebody spectacularly interesting on national security issues on it. Or reading some of the other content on the site, or joining up and becoming a member.
David Rothkopf: 44:06 And if you haven’t done that, why haven’t you done that? That will help this process grow. It’s not that expensive. It’ll take about 60 seconds of your time. And it will bring you infinite joy and happiness, possibly also long life, although scientific studies on that are not yet concluded. In any event, thank you very much. And we will talk to you again sometime soon.
Production Note: 44:34 Deep State Radio is a production of the Deep State Radio Network, a division of TRG Interactive Media. Our podcast today was produced in cooperation with Goat Rodeo Productions and was supervised by Ian Enright. Join us again for another episode of Deep State Radio. If you don’t, we know where to find you.
