The Washington Post - 14.11.2019

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14 , 2019. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A25

THURSDAY Opinion

“I

t’s not as outlandish as it could be.”

Of all the excuses, defenses, dis-

tractions and outright non sequiturs

President Trump’s defenders de-

ployed at Wednesday’s first public impeach-

ment hearing — the whistleblower is biased!

Hunter Biden is corrupt! Adam Schiff wanted

nude photos of Trump! — the most telling

came from Steve Castor, the Republicans’ chief

counsel, as he questioned Bill Taylor, Ameri-

ca’s man in Kyiv.

Describing the “irregular channel” Trump

lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his team of “ami-

gos” used to coerce Ukraine’s president to an-

nounce investigations into Trump’s political

opponents, Castor asked Taylor: “In fairness,

this irregular channel of diplomacy, it’s not as

outlandish as it could be — is that correct?”

Taylor seemed to think Castor was telling a

joke. “It’s not as outlandish as it could be,” he

said with a laugh. “I agree.”

True! Giuliani could have conducted the

entire scheme in drag. Or they could have

threatened the Ukrainian president with a

Nerf gun instead of merely withholding mili-

tary aid. But Castor wasn’t kidding. He de-

fended his point at length, then asked again:

“It may be irregular, but it’s certainly not out-

landish?”

Taylor smiled, shook his head and nodded,

as if to convey: Whatever you say.

Taylor, fifth in his class at West Point, deco-

rated officer in Vietnam, longtime diplomat,

knows outlandish when he sees it. On top of

his extensive previous testimony about the

details of Trump pressuring Ukraine for help

with his reelection, Taylor, hand-picked by

the Trump administration for the Ukraine

job, added further testimony Wednesday

about Trump himself asking an envoy about

“the investigations” and the envoy complain-

ing that Trump cares “more about the investi-

gations of Biden” than about Ukraine. Taylor

tried to underscore the gravity of Trump’s sus-

pension of military aid. “Even as we sit here

today, the Russians are attacking Ukrainian

soldiers in their own country,” he said. “I saw

this on the front line last week.”

Against that solemn backdrop — both the

gravity of impeachment and the life-and-

death nature of the aid Trump suspended for

his personal benefit — Republicans behaved

in a manner that was, well, outlandish (if en-

tirely regular). The juxtaposition was jarring:

The witnesses, and most Democrats, kept a

narrow focus on this year’s events in Ukraine

— while Republicans assailed the Ukrainians,

the Democrats, the diplomatic corps, the FBI,

the Justice Department, Fusion GPS, the

“Black Ledger” — you name it. In a big mo-

ment, they went small.

They decorated the dais with posters tar-

geting the whistleblower’s lawyer, a Demo-

cratic backbencher and Intelligence Commit-

tee Chairman Adam Schiff. In the audience,

Republican lawmakers not on the committee

interrupted proceedings with groans and de-

risive laughter and an occasional “Hear, hear.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.) took a selfie. At the

White House, Trump tweeted messages, in-

cluding from some on the panel and in the au-

dience: “Sham.” “Cover-up.” “Hoax.” “Fantasy.”

On the stage, Republicans made two par-

liamentary inquiries, a point of order and a

motion to subpoena the whistleblower and

interrupted proceedings with several other

complaints — all before Taylor answered a

single question. They decried the “televised,

theatrical performance” (after demanding

public proceedings), and they dismissed wit-

ness accounts as “hearsay” (after supporting

Trump’s refusal to allow those with firsthand

knowledge to testify).

In lieu of an opening statement, Devin

Nunes (Calif.), the ranking Republican, read

slogans and epithets: “Russia hoax... pre-

posterous allegations... Media smear...

Cultlike... Purely fictitious... Star chamber

... Low-rent Ukrainian sequel... politicized
bureaucracy.” He later informed Taylor that
“you did not do due diligence” by investigat-
ing whether the Ukrainians really were out to
get Trump in 2016.
Taylor pointed out that Ukrainians were
angry with Trump not because of a conspira-
cy but because Trump had made the “amaz-
ingly inflammatory” statement that Crimea
might want to be part of Russia.
Nunes responded by denouncing Barack
Obama’s meeting with Russia’s president. In
2012.
Perhaps concerned that they might look in-
effective, GOP leaders had installed the pugi-
listic Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) on the commit-
tee — and he immediately assailed Taylor’s
credibility because Trump released the mili-
tary aid without the announcement of a
Biden investigation. Omitted by Jordan:
Trump released the aid as the scandal was
about to explode publicly.
“You’re their star witness?” Jordan asked
with scorn. “I have seen church prayer chains
that are easier to understand” than Taylor’s
testimony.
“I’m not here to take one side or another,”
Taylor replied. “My understanding is only
coming from people that I talked to.”
“We got that,” Jordan said with a sneer. He
then shared a laugh with Castor.
Minutes later, Jordan resumed his attack
on the veteran diplomat. “What you heard did
not happen,” he said. “So you had to be
wrong.” Taylor pointed out that the withheld
aid “shook the confidence of a close partner.”
Jordan cut him off. “That’s not what this
proceeding is about,” he said.
No, it’s about savaging an honorable public
servant — part of an anything-goes strategy to
obscure a president’s wrongdoing.
That’s as outlandish as it could be.
Twitter: @Milbank

DANA MILBANK

IMPEACHMENT DIARY

In the big

moment, the

GOP goes small

HILLSBORO, Ohio

T

he majority of residents in the

Trump Country stronghold of

Highland County remain united

around President Trump. Rather

than shaking their resolve, the impeach-

ment proceedings are solidifying their sup-

port. But while three-fourths of the elector-

ate here cast their vote for Trump in 2016,

those among the other 25 percent view the

president through a different lens, while

trying to make sure the deep partisan

divide does not impact lifelong friendships.

Dinah Phillips has spent nearly two

decades as chair of the county Democratic

Party, working against the local Republican

tide year after year to advance her party’s

candidates and agenda. After 50-plus years

in the legal system as a court reporter,

Phillips, 73, knows almost everyone and

has maintained positive relationships with

the majority of her fellow residents regard-

less of political affiliation. But she has

noticed a change under Trump.

“It used to be, we could have a good

conversation,” Phillips said. But now, “I

temper what I say more so than I used to,

especially if I’m talking to a Trump sup-

porter. They would get into a knockdown,

drag-out fight, and I never felt that way

before.”

She thinks Trump’s tariffs are harmful to

local farmers and that several other poli-

cies are misguided. But what really bothers

her is that Trump is “very divisive” — more

so than previous presidents. “I don’t care

for his language,” Phillips said. “We expect

better from the president.” She finds it

confusing that, when it comes to Trump’s

words and deeds, “people who are religious

don’t seem to care.”

Cody Mathews, 27, is an enthusiastic and

loquacious student of politics who teaches

history at Hillsboro High School and

serves as president of the Hillsboro Educa-

tion Association. He sees in the Trump

administration analogies to two former

presidents — Warren G. Harding in regard

to scandals, and Andrew Jackson in the use

of “racially charged language,” comparing

Trump’s criticisms of undocumented im-

migrants with Jackson’s demonizing of

Native Americans.

Mathews said he cares more about issues

than Trump’s character flaws. He sees

Trump as a “gaslighter,” pandering to the

fears, rather than the hopes, of many Amer-

icans while, in fact, “he’s let down workers

in the Midwest.” Trump, he said, is a

reactionary, not a strategist.

Unlike Phillips, Mathews doesn’t avoid

political conversations with Trump sup-

porters. He enjoys a good debate. But he is

mindful that most of his students come

from pro-Trump families, and he keeps his

politics out of the classroom — even, he

chuckles, when “the kids try to trap me.”

Wendell Harewood, 82, worked for the

U.S. Postal Service for 50 years, including

20 as postmaster in the county seat, Hills-

boro, and has served on numerous boards

and community organizations. He is soft-

spoken and measures his words carefully.

He is also among just 4.7 percent of Hills-

boro residents who are African American,

and, for Harewood, the reason for Trump’s

support here is not complicated.

“There are not a lot of people here who

don’t look like him,” said Harewood. Hare-

wood, who spent 50 years as a pastor in the

local AME church, said he was “shocked”

when Trump was elected. “I don’t think

there’s a Christian bone in that man’s body,”

Harewood said, pointing to Trump’s treat-

ment of women and minorities. After what

he hoped was a sign of progress with the

election of Barack Obama as president,

Harewood fears Trump “is taking us back

to the ’50s and ’60s.”

He avoids using pejorative labels to

define local Trump supporters, saying in-

stead, “I think it’s more of the fact they’ve

been brought up that way,” not trusting

“anybody who doesn’t look like them.”

Harewood echoed Phillips’s sentiments

about living in Trump Country: “It’s be-

coming more difficult,” he said.

Even among local Trump critics, howev-

er, views on impeachment are mixed.

“I’m not sure impeachment wouldn’t

further divide the country,” said Phillips,

although she says ignoring the issues

would send a message that “you can do

anything you want and get away with it.”

Harewood, too, has doubts. “I wonder if

everything is legitimate they’re bringing

up,” he said, referring to both parties. As for

Trump, “His only course is to deny every-

thing.”

Mathews acknowledged that impeach-

ment “plays well with Democrats,” but he

also thinks it’s “the right thing to do.” To

him, Trump’s Ukraine phone call repre-

sented not just a quid pro quo but also

outright “extortion.”

Phillips, Mathews and Harewood expect

that when they cast their votes next year,

they will be outnumbered 3 to 1 here by

pro-Trump friends and neighbors in line

with them. But whether it’s the optimism of

youth, or a dose of wisdom beyond his

years, Mathews isn’t discouraged.

“We’re all more alike than we are differ-

ent,” he said. Respectful dialogue between

Trump backers and critics can be fostered

and friendships maintained “if you don’t

treat politics like a sport, and if you stick to

talking about issues.”

Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The

Post, is a freelance writer based in Hillsboro,

Ohio.

GARY ABERNATHY

Neighborliness

gets a little

harder

T

he year-end rush of movies

might prove me wrong, but

the biggest cinematic clash

of titans in 2019 isn’t the

one between carmakers Ford and

Ferrari dramatized by James Man-

gold, or the rematch between Rey

and Kylo Ren in the forthcoming

“Rise of Skywalker.”

Rather, it’s the brawl set off by

legendary director Martin Scors-

ese’s Oct. 4 declaration that Marvel’s

superhero movies are “theme

parks” rather than cinema. Even in

our era of pitched culture warfare,

it’s rare for any argument to last this

long. Scorsese fueled the battle with

an early-November op-ed defending

his position, prompting a response

from Marvel chief Kevin Feige.

Scorsese’s contentions — that the

Marvel movies are formulaic, don’t

attempt to explore the full spec-

trum of human experience and are

crowding other movies out of the

multiplex with all the relish of a

world-devouring supervillain — are

undeniably true. But it might not

matter: Marvel’s takeover of popu-

lar culture is already too far under-

way.

As movies, the entries in the

Marvel Cinematic Universe are con-

sistent, competent and rarely out-

standing. It’s as a piece of public

relations that the franchise’s dia-

bolical brilliance really becomes

apparent: The MCU isn’t built

merely to entertain you but also to

anticipate and blunt your objec-

tions.

Grumpy that comic book movies

are kids’ stuff? Marvel hired noted

Shakespearean interpreter Ken-

neth Branagh to direct “Thor.”

Worried that Marvel movies will

lack the edge that defined contem-

porary action classics? The fran-

chise tapped “Lethal Weapon” writ-

er Shane Black to helm “Iron

Man 3.”

Vexed by the overwhelming

whiteness of Hollywood? Not to

worry: Marvel has paired up direc-

tor Ryan Coogler and actor Chad-

wick Boseman to give you a fantas-

tically Afro-futuristic “Black Pan-

ther.”

Uneasy about racial stereotypes

in the “Doctor Strange” comics?

Marvel avoided one pitfall (though

the company stumbled into a

whitewashing controversy), gar-

nered a few feminist brownie

points and appeased Chinese cen-

sors anxious about references to

Tibet by recasting the Ancient One

as a Celtic woman played by Tilda

Swinton.

LGBTQ representation? The As-

gardian Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson)

and... some random guy in Captain

America’s postapocalyptic support

group... turn up to tick that box.

Never mind that the overall story

arcs are managed from on high;

that the action sequences are prac-

tically factory-generated; that these

depictions of black superheroes or

LGBTQ people or women never

actually say anything about racism,

homophobia or misogyny; or that

the movies themselves rarely say

much of anything at all.

And if a cinematic superhero as

pedigreed as Scorsese wants to ob-

ject to Marvel’s takeover of movie

culture, well, the MCU has an an-

swer for him: talented young direc-

tors such as Coogler, the team of

Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, Chloe

Zhao and Destin Daniel Cretton, all

of whom have spent time on the

Marvel payroll. Hires such as these

give Marvel a reputation for sup-

porting the Scorseses of the future,

even as the company subsumes

them into the vast machine of its

storytelling.

Lamenting that these rising stars

are spending a couple of years

apiece lending their talents to a

bland bit of corporate entertain-

ment risks coming across as conde-

scending. It gets even more churl-

ish when you remember that there

might not be a studio bold enough

to fund the sorts of movies these

directors fought to make on their

own. What are we supposed to do,

root for the directors of “Fruitvale

Station,” “Short Term 12” and “Half

Nelson” not to work out of some

desire to keep them pure? And if the

movies these directors are making

happen to be Marvel movies, don’t

we want to support them, lest they

be judged comparative failures and

denied the opportunity to make

their passion projects?

Not only has Marvel lined up

these arguments neatly, but also it

has pulled off the ultimate accom-

plishment by persuading a huge

number of people to argue on the

company’s behalf as if it’s a belea-

guered underdog. This inversion of

the relationship between customer

and company is a powerful reversal

of current: Not only have fans made

Marvel box office champions,

they’re also doing unpaid work as

the franchise’s publicists.

Who needs Loki’s Chitauri army

to take over New York when you can

get a complete cultural takeover for

free?

Twitter: @AlyssaRosenberg

ALYSSA ROSENBERG

Marvel is a supervillain. Even

Scorsese doesn’t stand a chance.

TARA JACOBY FOR THE WASHINGTON POST

I

t’s easy to get caught up in our own

drama of Trumpian populism, es-

pecially with public impeachment

hearings beginning. But it’s im-

portant to remember that what’s hap-

pening here is only a small part of a

global trend. Illiberal rulers are under-

mining democracy from Poland to the

Philippines. Even India, the world’s

largest democracy, with 1.3 billion

people, is seeing its freedoms erode

under the increasingly autocratic rule

of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Modi was first elected in 2014 on a

promise to boost India’s economic

growth. “Government has no business

being in business,” he proclaimed, and

he was credulously welcomed by some

American conservatives as a South

Asian Reagan or Thatcher. But his

economic reforms have been a bust.

Far from accelerating growth to 9 per-

cent or 10 percent — the pace that,

according to the Financial Times, “is

necessary to create sufficient jobs for

the estimated 12m Indians entering

the workforce each year” — growth has

fallen to 5 percent, the worst perfor-

mance in six years.

Modi hasn’t been hurt politically —

he won reelection in a landslide in May

— because he has transitioned from an

economic to a nationalist message.

Like other populists, Modi taps into

the resentment of impoverished voters

left behind by globalization by direct-

ing their anger at elites and minorities.

In India’s case, that means the English-

speaking elites associated with the

Congress Party, which barely exists

anymore, and the 14 percent of Indians

who are Muslims, along with smaller

numbers of Christians, Sikhs and other

minorities, in a country that is 80 per-

cent Hindu.

In truth, Hindu nationalism has

always been central to Modi’s appeal.

In 2005, when he was chief minister of

the state of Gujarat, Modi was banned

from entering the United States be-

cause he and his party, the Bharatiya

Janata Party (BJP), were accused of

having incited communal riots against

Muslims that left more than 1,000 peo-

ple dead. Today, as prime minister, he

continues to largely turn a blind eye to

hate crimes against Muslims, which

have skyrocketed since he took office.

On Aug. 5, Modi revoked the autono-

my of India’s lone Muslim-majority

state: Jammu and Kashmir. Half a

million Indian security forces then

brutally quashed demonstrations and

locked up local leaders. The Internet

and telephone service were cut off, and

media prohibited from visiting, to

keep the world from learning what was

happening.

In the state of Assam, next door to

Bangladesh, Modi is moving to strip

2 million Muslims of their Indian

citizenship on the dubious grounds

that they are undocumented immi-

grants. The state government in Assam

is now building vast detention camps

to hold thousands of people who are

likely to be deported. This could be a

prelude to stripping citizenship — and

the vote — from millions of Muslims

elsewhere in India.

The judiciary, in India as elsewhere,

has traditionally been a bulwark of

liberty, but BJP partisans increasingly

dominate the courts. India’s Supreme

Court just ruled that a massive Hindu

temple could be built in the town of

Ayodhya on the site of a 16th-century

mosque that was razed by Hindu

fanatics in 1992. This has long been a

cherished project of Hindu national-

ists such as Modi who are determined

to transform India from a secular

democracy into a Hindu theocracy.

One of Modi’s most eloquent critics

has been Aatish Taseer, a writer who

was born in Britain (whose citizenship

he still holds), grew up in India and

now lives in the United States. In May,

he wrote an essay in Time headlined

“Can the World’s Largest Democracy

Endure Another Five Years of a Modi

Government?” As if to prove Taseer’s

concerns correct, the government just

stripped him of his Overseas Citizen-

ship of India card — the closest that the

country has to dual nationality.

The Indian government has accused

Taseer of fraud for not declaring that

his father was a Pakistani citizen. But

he tells me that no such declaration

was necessary when his single mother,

a well-known Indian journalist who

gave birth to him out of wedlock, filled

out the form in 2000. In any case, he

has not made any secret of his parent-

age; he has written many essays and

books about his father, a Pakistani

politician with whom he had no con-

tact until age 21 and who was assassi-

nated in 2011.

With his Overseas Citizenship card

revoked on grounds of fraud, Taseer

now could be blacklisted from visiting

his aging mother and grandmother in

India, a country that he has always

called his own. This allows the

BJP government to write off his criti-

cisms as those of a disgruntled Paki-

stani, even though he has never lived

in Pakistan or been its citizen.

What is happening in India is pro-

foundly disturbing, all the more so

because it might serve as a template

for how President Trump — an un-

abashed admirer of Modi who hosted

the prime minister for a Houston rally

in September — could further under-

mine our own democracy. With eco-

nomic growth slowing and impeach-

ment proceedings accelerating, ap-

peals to nationalism, xenophobia and

racism are Trump’s best bet to win a

second term.

Twitter: @MaxBoot

MAX BOOT

Narendra Modi is India’s Trump