John Rachal's Blog

As Ukraine enters its second winter of war, American support for continuing aid to Ukraine in the form of arms and humanitarian assistance has dropped from 65% in June, almost sixteen months after Putin’s invasion, to 41% currently. This erosion of support was probably as inevitable as it is odious. Trump and other right-wing Republicans oppose the aid, and so naturally Trump voters, whose moral compasses seem so often wanting, oppose it as well. Their tax dollars shouldn’t go to some country we don’t give a damn about! Putin’s not a threat to us! And, as I and many others have noted elsewhere, Trump’s failed attempt to extort Zelenskyy is the very thing that led to the former president’s first impeachment.

I have already mentally compared Zelenskyy to Churchill (see “Churchills, not Chamberlains” in a previous blog). So it is “altogether fitting and proper,” to use Lincoln’s words from Gettysburg, to note what Churchill said to then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 after the latter claimed “peace for our time” by sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Hitler, resulting in the Munich agreement: “You had a choice between dishonor and war. You have chosen dishonor, and you will have war.” After Zelenskyy’s country was invaded and he was advised to skip the country, he said, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” I swear I can hear Churchill cheering.

In 1948, ten years after the infamous event that became known to World War II history simply as “Munich,” Churchill published The Gathering Storm, the first volume of his monumental memoirist history of the war. In the chapter “The Tragedy of Munich,” he offers a moral lesson for the future that our time, and our country, should heed:

“It may be well here to set down some principles of morals and action which may be a guide in the future. . . . There is, however, one helpful guide, namely, for a nation to keep its word and to act in accordance with its treaty obligations to allies. This guide is called honour. It is baffling to reflect that what men call honour does not correspond always to Christian ethics. . . . Here, however, the moment came when Honour pointed the path of Duty, and also when right judgment of the facts at that time would have reinforced its dictates.”

His future is our present. He continues:

“For the French Government to leave her faithful ally, Czechoslovakia, to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences. Not only wise and fair policy, but chivalry, honour, and sympathy for a small threatened people made an overwhelming concentration. Great Britain, who would certainly have fought if bound by treaty obligations [as France was to Czechoslovakia], was nevertheless deeply involved, and it must be recorded with regret that the British Government not only acquiesced but encouraged the French Government in a fatal course.”

It should be noted that France and Britain had already sacrificed Austria without a fight. It was not until September 1, 1939, a year after Munich and after France and Britain had shamefully allowed a weak Germany to violate the 1919 Versailles treaty by re-arming to the point of military supremacy in their vain hope of “peace,” that the war officially began with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Who knows how long the U. S. would have remained isolationist had not Japan done Britain and France—and Europe itself—the enormous favor of attacking Pearl Harbor over two years later?

It should also be noted that in 1994 the United States, along with the United Kingdom, Ukraine and, of all countries, Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, which provided Ukraine with security assurances in exchange for its surrendering of its nuclear weapons.

So let’s change the countries and a few tenses in Churchill’s lead sentence of his second paragraph: “For the American government to leave her faithful ally, Ukraine, to her fate would be a melancholy lapse from which will flow terrible consequences.” Not only is helping Ukraine and its “small threatened people”—in the form of money and arms only, let us remember, not American troops—“wise and fair policy,” but also the right thing to do, the honorable thing to do, the absolutely necessary thing to do.

Tom Nichols (former Republican and former professor at the U.S. Naval War College; also five-time Jeopardy champ), has a great November 16 essay in the digital The Atlantic. He argues that Trump has finally crossed the line from mere authoritarianism to full-blown fascism, which he defines and characterizes in a compelling paragraph. He notes how he (Nichols) was reluctant to use the word fascism earlier partly because he was aware of how emotionally potent words are sometimes used and inflated for their dramatic effect, like war on poverty, war on drugs, and war on terror, and how that very inflation ultimately diminishes their impact.

I remember expressing the same idea when I reviewed a book on ageism years ago that, among various other sins, compared in some detail ageism (prejudice against old people) to Nazism, as if a Holocaust survivor might agree and say “oh yeah, they’re about equal.” The problem, of course, is that when you hyper-inflate your use of a dramatic word, or draw a comparison between two very unequal things, a critical auditor or reader sees the disjunct between what you want him to think and the actual reality, and that undermines your credibility. It also can be a disservice to history, as the ageism authors proved, by equating non-equal things in order to enhance the ignominy of the speaker’s (in this case the authors’) particular bete noire. I suspect this was Madeline Albright’s reluctance to characterize American politics of just a few years ago as fascist because she had experienced it first-hand as a young girl in Europe. Nichols was wary of the “f-word” when applied to Trump early on, observing that he could see Trump’s potential fascism but did not want to use the term because Trump had not yet “crossed the line.” But Nichols says that now Trump has crossed that line in two recent bellowing, semi-stream-of-consciousness speeches, one in which he described immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country,” and the other, in Claremont, New Hampshire, where he says:

“We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, Marxists, fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country … On Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible … legally or illegally to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.”

This is Mein Kampf language, pure and simple. Note that there is not a reference to “radical right thugs,” such as Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, the modern American equivalent of Hitler’s Brownshirts. The word vermin is also right out of Hitler’s playbook, suggesting that the Jews of Hitler’s era, and the immigrants, antifa, and Black Lives Matter of ours, are “sick” and less than human, and need to be “root[ed] out.” Given Trump’s limited vocabulary, his use of vermin may suggest that at least some of the speech was ghost-written, and if so, that just tells us how surrounded he is by fellow fascists.  The choice of vaguely archaic, almost biblical verbs–drive out, cast out, throw off, root out--implies Hitlerian purification, but the means of purification are not specific–concentration camps? Deportation to–somewhere? Imprisonment? Murder? Civil War? Meanwhile Trump’s “poisoning the blood of our country” is exactly the same as Hitler’s semi-sacred, race-pure Aryanism, and it’s designed to summon from the deep the grievances and resentments of whites who are unable or unwilling to see contemporary fascism when it stares them in the face.

Add to all of this Trump’s promise of “retribution” if he is re-elected. Has there ever been a presidential candidate whose party platform consists of his personal, self-proclaimed victimization and his consequent infliction of “retribution”? And is our nation so currently debased that over forty percent of its voters have been conned into thinking that is what they want?

As I’ve suggested before, this is no longer just about one man vs. another, an honorable Democrat vs. an honorable Republican. This is about voting for democracy, or voting against it.