The Washington Post - USA (2022-03-01)

TUESDAY, MARCH 1 , 2022. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A25

TUESDAY Opinion

BY AUDREY MCDONALD ATKINS

E

ugene Walter, the bon vivant

chronicler of life in Mobile,

Ala., once wrote, “If, as a child,

you saw, every Mardi Gras, the

figure of Folly chasing Death around

the broken column of life, beating him

on the back with a Fool’s scepter...

wouldn’t you see the world in different

terms, too?”

Folly chasing Death. I can’t think of

a better way to describe much of what

has happened over the past two pan-

demic years.

The Order of Myths (OOM), Mo-

bile’s oldest Mardi Gras mystic society,

founded in 1867, takes Folly chasing

Death as its symbol. Folly is always

depicted as a court jester who chases

his skeletal foe, Death, around a bro-

ken column that symbolizes the fragili-

ty of life.

And after about 60 parades over

several weeks of Mardi Gras celebra-

tions, the OOM parade this week (if

you want to sound like a local, pro-

nounce it “double-oh-em”) will be, as

usual, the last one, falling on Fat Tues-

day. It’s the last gasp of fun before the

penitential season of Lent begins.

For more than 150 years, the Carni-

val season has ended with Folly defeat-

ing Death by beating him with gilded

pig bladders. Seriously, the Fool’s

“scepter” is a broomstick from which

dangle two inflated pig bladders that

have been painted gold.

The scepter stayed on the shelf last

year, when covid-19 canceled Mobile’s

Mardi Gras season. But it was in full

swing the year before — revelry in the

streets even as death was creeping up

on the world. Fat Tuesday that year fell

on Feb. 25, when the coronavirus was

still called “novel,” when the World

Health Organization had not yet de-

clared its spread a pandemic.

My husband and I traveled from

our home in Birmingham to Mobile

County, where I was born and grew

up, to visit my parents and, of course,

take in the Mardi Gras parades. The

weather was gloriously sunny and

nearly 70 degrees, even though it was

still winter.

We had no idea that within a couple

of weeks, the things we took for grant-

ed would become unthinkable: Kick-

ing off the day in a crowded downtown

restaurant with bloody marys topped

with skewers of boiled shrimp, olives,

and pickled okra and green beans.

Strolling along with other Mardi Gras

revelers among the live oaks in Bien-

ville Square. Staking out a spot at my

favorite vantage point, the corner of St.

Francis and St. Joseph streets, as the

crowd gathered.

Before too long, we heard the tell-

tale sirens alerting the crowd that the

parade was near. Marching bands and

floats passed us, krewe members toss-

ing MoonPies, beads, Mardi Gras dou-

bloons and other treats to out-

stretched hands. My husband caught a

4-foot bright green, furry stuffed tric-

eratops for me.

I named him Folly, and he still sits

on the chair in our bedroom as a

reminder of all the fun we had before

the world shut down.

“Folly” is defined as a costly or fool-

ish undertaking. I never in a million

years dreamed that venturing out to

the bookstore or grocery store would

become an act of folly. Or that visiting

with a friend from a 6-foot distance,

our smiles hidden by flowery masks we

coordinated with our outfits, would

become a daredevil stunt. Or that

searching for toilet paper and Lysol

wipes would become an extreme sport.

Forget about dancing around in a

crowd of thousands trying to catch

some plastic beads and a smushed

marshmallow cookie.

For the past two years, I’ve felt like

Folly, only Death was chasing me. And

it wasn’t a man in a silly skeleton

costume with a skull mask.

It was the woman who got too close

to me in the line at the Piggly Wiggly.

And the hikers who wouldn’t yield an

inch on the trail. And the people who

crowd together in restaurants and bars

and then go out into the world reck-

lessly spreading their mucus and drop-

lets. And the ones who refuse to believe

that there is still a pandemic and won’t

get vaccinated or wear a mask, not

even one with a skeleton grin.

In the past two years, we’ve had to

give up so many things that we used to

take for granted, such as standing on a

crowded sidewalk in the sun and

watching a parade. That’s why I hope

the experience is all that more fun for

the thousands of revelers who are en-

joying the Mardi Gras parades in Mo-

bile and New Orleans and elsewhere

this year, even as the shadow of the

pandemic still looms over us all.

Because this Fat Tuesday, this one

day out of the whole year, is the day

Death can never win. Laissez les bons

temps rouler.

Audrey McDonald Atkins is the author of

“They Call Me Orange Juice: Stories and

Essays.”

For two

y ears, Folly

has chased

Death

I

n January, the three men convicted in the

2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery were sen-

tenced to life imprisonment by a Georgia

judge. Yet last week, they were convicted

again for their roles in the killing, and will be

sentenced again soon.

Are two convictions better than one? Politi-

cians across the spectrum, including Georgia’s

Republican governor, seem to think so. But the

highly unusual decision to prosecute individuals

a second time for the same acts, even without the

possibility of greater punishment, represents a

little-noticed but potentially significant erosion

in a Justice Department policy intended to re-

strain prosecutors and protect civil liberties.

Travis McMichael, who fatally shot Arbery;

his father, Gregory McMichael, who set off the

chase; and William Bryan, who followed in his

vehicle, are now notorious criminals. It’s certain-

ly understandable, at a time of racial polariza-

tion, that many Americans celebrated the men’s

federal conviction on hate-crimes charges.

But it’s precisely in climates of political pas-

sion that government is most likely to justify

policies that corrode rights in the long run. This

insight was until recently second nature to

American liberals, as in their criticism of Presi-

dent George W. Bush’s “war on terror.” Successive

prosecutions for the same act — like government

searches of journalists or restrictions on peace-

ful assembly — might sometimes be necessary,

but their wider use deserves close scrutiny in a

free society no matter how odious the govern-

ment’s targets.

As Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch

wrote in a 2019 opinion: “When governments

may unleash all their might in multiple prosecu-

tions against an individual, exhausting them-

selves only when those who hold the reins of

power are content with the result,” the most

unpopular defendants will be among the first

targets — but there is “nothing to stop them from

being the last.”

Gorsuch’s opinion, on the Fifth Amendment’s

double-jeopardy clause, was a dissent. The Su-

preme Court allows successive prosecutions by

federal and state governments for the same

crime — and the federal charges against the

Arbery defendants differ from the state murder

charges because they required prosecutors to

prove racial bias.

Yet the Justice Department has for decades

recognized that prosecuting people for the same

acts multiple times, even when it has the consti-

tutional authority, risks distorting the justice

system. And though Justice won’t admit it, the

department appears to have carved out a new

exception to its dual-prosecution policy in this

case.

Named for a 1960 Supreme Court opinion, the

“Petite policy” says federal prosecutors should

not charge people for acts already prosecuted by

a state unless the state outcome left “a substan-

tial federal interest ... demonstrably unvindicat-

ed.” That narrow exception could apply, the

policy says, if a state acquittal was the result of

misconduct, or where a penalty was “manifestly

inadequate.”

For example, after Los Angeles police officers

who beat Rodney King were acquitted by a

California jury in 1992, the federal government

successfully prosecuted some of them under a

federal civil rights statute. Those laws were

passed in part to protect Black Americans

against violence that might be tolerated by local

authorities or juries.

But in the Arbery case, the jury did convict. So

what interest, exactly, is vindicated by a succes-

sive prosecution? A Justice Department repre-

sentative said in an email that there is a “substan-

tial federal interest in obtaining a conviction

against the three defendants for a hate crime,”

adding that the state convictions “do not contain

a hate-crime element.”

Is it the department’s position that the Petite

policy’s presumption against dual prosecutions

no longer applies in instances where the Justice

Department can charge defendants under a civil

rights statute? It certainly appears so — see also

the successive federal conviction of former Min-

neapolis police officer Derek Chauvin after he

was sentenced to 22.5 years in state prison for the

murder of George Floyd.

This apparent reinterpretation of the Petite

policy has taken place without a public explana-

tion or debate. Instead of reserving dual prosecu-

tions for cases where a state penalty was insuffi-

cient, the Justice Department now asserts an

interest in seeking convictions for purely sym-

bolic purposes. That matters: An important con-

straint on government power has been removed.

President Biden, campaigning for his federal

elections bill, last month accused Georgia of

implementing “Jim Crow 2.0,” and a high-profile

federal hate-crimes conviction in the state could

be seen as supporting his argument. That shows

how symbolic prosecutions can blur the line

between politics and the law. The Justice Depart-

ment’s highly irregular handling of this case

suggests that the administration’s political inter-

ests played a role.

Those who support the rollback of the Petite

policy in this instance should not be surprised

when a future administration does so to publi-

cize other classes of crime that align with its

political interests. For example, a Republican

administration could bring federal charges

against individuals already vigorously pros-

ecuted and sentenced at the state level for acts of

violence or property destruction during 2020

Black Lives Matter protests.

Righteous outrage over Arbery’s murder

shouldn’t obscure these risks. Georgia already

imposed maximum penalties on those responsi-

ble. The federal government saw no downside in

proceeding with a double prosecution against

reviled defendants already under life sentences,

confident the effort would be cheered in the

media. But amid much self-congratulation, it

has chipped away at a meaningful norm intend-

ed to buttress constitutional rights, and the

implications will extend beyond this case.

JASON WILLICK

Don’t a pplaud

the hate-crime

convictions

BY ALEXANDER S. VINDMAN

F

or a decade, the West has failed

to do enough to ensure contin-

ued deterrence in the face of

Russian aggression. Accounting

for this failure means doing more for

Ukraine now. Not tomorrow. Not next

week. Today.

Ukrainians are valiantly fighting to

defend their country from Russian in-

vaders. They have stunned the world

with their will to resist. The countries of

the West — far too passive initially —

have begun to rise to the challenge with

increased military aid and crippling

sanctions. Such steps are welcome, but

they still aren’t enough.

Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin has

chosen to threaten the world with Rus-

sia’s nuclear arsenal if other countries

intervene in his war on Ukraine. Despite

Putin’s bluster, however, the rules of

great-power competition and confron-

tation have not changed since the begin-

ning of the Cold War. But we have forgot-

ten how to confront a belligerent, saber-

rattling Russia. A previous generation of

policymakers would have managed ten-

sions while standing up to intimidation

and calling out incendiary rhetoric. In

truth, Russian leaders have no interest

in a nuclear war or a bilateral conven-

tional conflict that they would certainly

lose.

The West has far more room to ma-

neuver than it appears to grasp. Above

all, the United States and its allies must

be creative and proactive in crafting a

broad new strategy for Ukraine to re-

place decades of failed policy in the

region. Successive administrations have

mistakenly prioritized engagement

with Russia at the expense of regional

deterrence, security and stability. Simul-

taneously, the United States has played

down cooperation with sincere and will-

ing partners, such as Ukraine, for fear of

derailing the tenuous relationship with

Moscow.

For a generation, placating the Krem-

lin without applying the tools of hard

power became standard operating pro-

cedure. Now we — and, above all, Ukrai-

nians — are paying the price for this

mistake.

Starting today, however, the United

States and its allies can begin forming a

special relationship with Ukraine. This

partnership could be grounded in the

existing NATO-Ukraine Commission —

the decision-making body responsible

for developing the NATO-Ukraine rela-

tionship — and other existing institu-

tions. The cornerstone of this approach

would be a new version of the Marshall

Plan to rebuild Ukraine’s economy and a

21st-century version of the Lend-Lease

Act to support the heroic efforts of

Ukrainian soldiers with much-needed

lethal aid, including more antitank

weapons, powerful air defense systems

and unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs in

particular would be capable of striking

military targets on Russian and Belaru-

sian territory that are involved in the

current offensive, such as cruise mis-

siles, ballistic missiles and Russian air-

craft. Meanwhile, a NATO Membership

Action Plan should remain on the table

for Ukraine, and the West should sup-

port Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to inte-

grate with the European Union.

Funding for this bold new venture

would need to be orders of magnitude

higher than President Biden’s recent

pledge of $350 million. The United

States should aim to spend billions on

security assistance and tens of billions

on economic aid. Only help on that scale

will have a demonstrable impact.

There is already a historic precedent

for this kind of support and assistance.

During the Cold War, it was a well-

known fact among both Soviet and

Western leadership that if one side en-

gaged in an overseas conflict, the other

side would funnel materiel aid to op-

pose their adversary. Proxy wars were

the norm, and direct confrontation even

occurred occasionally.

Soviet and American fighter pilots

engaged in dogfights over the skies of

Korea in the 1950s. The U.S.S.R. sup-

ported the North Vietnamese during the

Vietnam War, and the United States, in

turn, aided the mujahideen during the

Soviet-Afghan War. This awareness of

the other side’s activities did not, howev-

er, lead to wider bilateral conflict or a

nuclear war. And in moments of acute

danger, such as the Cuban missile crisis,

a willingness to defend critical U.S. in-

terests and values prevented events

from spiraling out of control as well as

reducing the likelihood of future war.

The doctrine of mutually assured de-

struction has not disappeared over-

night, and as recently as January, the

United States and Russia reaffirmed

their view that a nuclear war cannot be

won and must never be fought. The

United States and its allies still maintain

a significant deterrent that Putin will

not choose to challenge on a whim; he is

not a madman. Shrinking from the mo-

ment would only grant a free hand to

countries with nuclear weapons to free-

ly escalate at a conventional level with-

out fear of anything beyond sanctions.

The proper response to this war is to

boost our support for Ukraine militarily

and economically.

Now that we’ve woken up, we must

decide if we’re willing to learn from the

past and change the course of history.

We cannot just watch as the Kremlin

assails a democratic nation and erodes

the foundations of everything the inter-

national community has built. The onus

is on the West to buttress Ukrainian

ferocity on the battlefield using its im-

mense economic resources, diplomatic

influence and military power.

Make no mistake, the world is watch-

ing. Ukraine is leading. Now, the West

must decide whether it has the fortitude

to support the Ukrainian people’s fight

for freedom.

The writer, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant

colonel and former director for European

affairs on the National Security Council, is a

doctoral student and senior fellow at Johns

Hopkins School of Advanced International

Studies.

How to up our game o n Ukraine

DIMITAR DILKOFF/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Residents and volunteers prepare a rear post with trenches in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Monday.

BY H.A. HELLYER

“T

his isn’t a place, with all due

respect, like Iraq or Afghani-

stan, that has seen conflict

raging for decades,” Charlie

D’Agata, a CBS correspondent in Kyiv,

told his colleagues back in the studio.

“You know, this is a relatively civilized,

relatively European — I have to choose

those words carefully, too — city where

you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s

going to happen.”

Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine

has generated an inspiring wave of soli-

darity around the world, but for many —

especially non-White observers — it has

been impossible to tune out the racist

biases in Western media and politics.

D’Agata’s comments generated a swift

backlash — and he was quick to apologize

— but he was hardly the only one. A

commentator on a French news program

said, “We’re not talking about Syrians

fleeing bombs of the Syrian regime

backed by Putin; we’re talking about Eu-

ropeans leaving in cars that look like ours

to save their lives.” On the BBC, a former

deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine

declared, “It’s very emotional for me be-

cause I see European people with blue

eyes and blond hair ... being killed every

day.” Even an Al Jazeera anchor said,

“These are not obviously refugees trying

to get away from areas in the Middle

East,” while an ITV News reporter said,

“Now the unthinkable has happened to

them, and this is not a developing, Third

World nation; this is Europe.”

British pundit Daniel Hannan joined

the chorus in the Telegraph. “They seem

so like us. That is what makes it so

shocking. War is no longer something

visited upon impoverished and remote

populations. It can happen to anyone,” he

wrote.

The implication for anyone reading or

watching — particularly anyone with ties

to a nation that has also seen foreign

intervention, conflict, sanctions and

mass migration — is clear: It’s much

worse when White Europeans suffer than

when it’s Arabs or other non-White peo-

ple. Yemenis, Iraqis, Nigerians, Libyans,

Afghans, Palestinians, Syrians, Hondu-

rans — well, they are used to it.

The insults went beyond media cover-

age. A French politician said Ukrainian

refugees represent “high-quality immi-

gration.” The Bulgarian prime minister

said Ukrainian refugees are “intelligent,

they are educated.... This is not the

refugee wave we have been used to, peo-

ple we were not sure about their identity,

people with unclear pasts, who could

have been even terrorists.”

It’s as if, in our anger and horror at the

scenes of Russia’s aggression, we are inca-

pable of recognizing a simple fact: We’ve

seen this before.

A Vanity Fair special correspondent

denied precisely that in a tweet: “This is

arguably the first war we’ve seen (actually

seen in real-time) take place in the age of

social media, and all of these heart-

wrenching images make Russia look ut-

terly terrible.”

The tweet was erased — like the experi-

ences of many who have documented the

horrors of war in recent decades on social

media and beyond.

Putin’s military also intervened fero-

ciously in Syria, backing a murderous

regime. That war unleashed a level of

mass death, suffering, destruction and

displacement not yet seen in Ukraine —

but the West’s response was far less

empathetic. The same can be said of the

U.S. invasions and military operations in

Afghanistan and Iraq; the catastrophic

Saudi-led war in Yemen; the Israeli occu-

pation of the Palestinians.

This double standard is so evident in

how we as Westerners engage in interna-

tional relations. Far too often, we dehu-

manize non-White populations, dimin-

ishing their importance, and that leads to

one thing: the degrading of their right to

live in dignity.

Beyond the moral and ethical impera-

tives, there are geopolitical ones — by

engaging with suffering in this myopic

way, we embolden other Putins. They

realize that the checks against them will

be mostly weak and ineffectual, as long as

the so-called civilized world is left alone.

It’s true that states often intervene to

protect their own interests. For all the talk

of “values,” it’s usually cold pragmatism

that informs decisions. But it is also true

that our “interests” are informed, tremen-

dously, by our values. When our values

stipulate that there is a civilizational lad-

der, where a population is on one end of it

and everyone else is far below, then we

lose the moral high ground.

Solidarity with the brave people of

Ukraine has reminded us all what is

possible when empathy is really felt, but it

will be bittersweet if our solidarity is

really just skin-deep. Our media has a big

role to play to avoid this. Many do an

excellent job, but too many need to do a

lot better.

The writer, a Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace scholar, is a senior fellow

at the Royal United Services Institute and

Cambridge University.

Coverage of Ukraine has exposed

r acist biases in Western media