Amy Siskind is keeping a list
Gay journalist goes viral tracking Trump’s lies
Amy Siskind’s work is the kind of genius historians will refer to in the next decade as the definitive chronicler of what went wrong and how.
“Experts in authoritarianism advise to keep a list of things subtly changing around you, so you’ll remember,” she likes to say.
Each day brings a bombshell that in ordinary times would dominate the news cycle for months with sweeping investigations. Trump takes to Twitter over the slightest perceived slight, promoting the fakest narrative he can spell out in 140 characters about news he wants his followers to ignore.
But that, like so much else, is just a charade that masks a whole spate of other alleged crimes and misdemeanors now under multiple investigations. While we are hyperventilating about a Tweet, something else much darker is happening.
And that’s where Siskind, who identifies as a gay woman, comes in. For the past seven months she has taken note and documented every instance of the abnormal or bizarre, spending 15-20 hours a week and talking to thousands of people to synthesize events as they happen.
She publishes her work (dubbed the “Weekly List”) chronicling the bad deeds of the Trump administration on social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook and Medium, attracting hundreds of thousands of weekly readers. Her work has been highlighted by The Washington Post and The Independent and Siskind is considered a rising journalistic star. A NYU journalism professor called her work “thoroughly journalistic and much needed.”
Siskind said her work on Trump originated from her post-election reading about how authoritarian governments take hold — behavior that seems shocking at first quickly becomes normal.
And on LGBT rights, she has a particularly urgent message, especially if you continue to believe that Trump hasn’t really gone after the LGBTQ community.
The Blade spoke with Siskind by phone from her home in Westchester County, N.Y.
BLADE: What’s the motivating force behind your work tracking Trump’s lies and the administration’s bizarre behavior? You told The Washington Post that it developed when you read about the process of normalization, that we come to accept things that are abnormal because we get lost in this slow drift of bizarreness. So I guess my question is, what strikes you so far as the most bizarre thing that’s happened?
AMY SISKIND: Though there are too many to mention, I think what strikes me most is that we are living in a constant state of chaos. There are so many items each and every day that are, in and of themselves, shocking. In normal times these things would be individual stories that would be covered by our media for weeks or months. But, because there are so many of them, we’ve lost track of accountability for these items or being able to even remember them. As a result, we’ve in a way normalized things that in any other time in our country or in our lifetimes would be shocking and deserving of outrage around the country. We’re bombarded with so many of these each and every day we’ve become desensitized.
That’s led to a sort of acceptance because we are sort of plowed over by all that’s not normal.
BLADE: Even journalists are plowed over. There’s tacit endorsement when they do not properly challenge him.
SISKIND: The bar was set pretty low by our media I have myself been a critic of the media early on about some journalists complimenting him for reading off a teleprompter or covering him like you would a normal candidate, talking about things like infrastructure when it was pretty obvious even before he took office that he was not going to be normal.
Even though it started out that way, I am grateful to see a shift.
I think the media has realized they are under siege now and being silenced. I see mainstream journalists beginning to form a community and protecting one another. Journalists from the right are still amplifying authoritarian messages and giving credence to “news” that’s not true news. I am starting to see change.
What The List does that our media is not able to do — because they need to cover every story as if it were a traditional administration (or in Trump’s case it’s a regime) — is give some perspective week by week about what’s happening.
What mainstream journalists are reporting is very in the moment but it doesn’t, with the exception of a few like maybe Rachel Maddow, trace back the story.
For example, The List can follow the Deutsche Bank over weeks or months whereas most of the reporting is just “here we are in this moment and today.” So what I really hope to accomplish with The List is to access all the stories about Deutsche Bank that have happened over the last several months since I’ve been doing The List. It’s a journalistic way of tying things together that our media is not doing.
Typically, I spend 15 to 20 hours a week on each list because so many of the things I put in the list are not widely seen, but to me are really important.
I spend a lot of time covering treatment of different subsets of people because that’s part of authoritarianism; I mean how you treat one then how do you treat the LGBTQ community how you treat people of different religions and people of color so I make sure to highlight things that are really not normal.
I cover the way citizens are acting but also the way the administration is acting.
BLADE: What do you make of gay Republicans and Trump supporters who say he hasn’t really done anything specifically bad to LGBTQ people?
SISKIND: That’s an uninformed argument. I think the LGBT community is in grave danger with Trump and the overriding thing is that we are invisible to the Trump administration.
And I’ll give specific examples of ways that he is hurting our community, but the overall theme is we’re invisible that’s never good for any community.
Let’s start with the fact that there’s no recognition of LGBTQ Pride month. When we are made invisible you take away our identity. Trump is doing that by not recognizing Pride: he’s doing that by not including LGBTQ people in the Census.
That’s a really big deal and I have it in my weekly list 32 that just came out; NPR did a Freedom of Information Act request on work that was done by HUD and they said Census data was essential for the inclusion of the LGBT community to be part of the Census. Trump’s response is that they don’t think it’s appropriate to ask questions of sexual orientation and gender identity topics, which is an argument that makes us invisible.
BLADE: That Census information is used throughout government to implement civil rights protections and to ensure representation and equality.
SISKIND: Point is that if you’re invisible you don’t need protections or rights. So, you can see the path down which he is taking the nation.
This was in week 31. In week 32, his Secretary of Education DeVos said she won’t go after schools that discriminate against transgender students amongst other things. They are not going to push on the civil rights issues. That was just one week!
Not protecting transgender people is an issue. They’ve also already taken away – in certain government departments – worker protections on the basis of sexual orientation.
So when you make people invisible, you don’t need to protect them against discrimination in housing and workplace discrimination. So, in many parts of the Trump administration it’s legally acceptable to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender.
And that’s that headline worthy!!! That should scream out with three exclamation points at the end.
People who don’t think he hasn’t done anything against LGBT people are missing the point — he’s slowly eroding our protections and making it legal to discriminate against us because of our sexual orientation and gender identity.
BLADE: It’s very much like what you said about authoritarianism — a slow erosion of normalcy.
SISKIND: Exactly! And end of rights for different subsets of people. You can see the different subsets of people that are under attack. It’s pretty much everyone that’s not white, straight, Christian and male. We can have the same conversation about ways women are being attacked or Muslim Americans or Jewish Americans or Latinos or immigrants or black Americans or something for everybody.
BLADE: Those, of course, include LGBT people…
SISKIND: Yes, we are under assault in so many ways. Let’s talk about Gorsuch. Just this week his Supreme Court appointee argued against gay adoption. And the scariest part of that to me is that it’s not based on fact. There’s study after study showing gay and lesbian parents are actually superior parents to heterosexual parents! So, it’s not based on any factual study, it’s based on his own bias.
These are the people that Trump is bringing into power and into authority. If that doesn’t scare you! There’s now, I think eight states, since he took power that are making it illegal for gay couples to adopt.
I know California now has banned official government business travel to those eight states.
But there’s eight states — since he took power — that are making it illegal in their state for gay people to adopt. Between workplace discrimination, gay adoption, and what happened to transgender people, transgender students being excluded from protection under the Civil Rights Act and in college too. I mean, this is something that impacts the LGBTQ community.
BLADE: They have taken away the right to sue for those things.
SISKIND: Yes! They won’t pursue that under DeVos and our Department of Justice. And we’re just at the start of things!
I’m looking here at week 20. ‘Trump signed an executive order which legalizes discrimination against LGBT federal employees.’ Yes, that’s one of the two items that week. And then the Census.
But that’s really a huge thing I mean it and then in a later week you have (Commerce Secretary) Wilbur Ross removing LGBT protections from the Commerce Department’s handbook. That another really big item to include in week 20.
BLADE: So much for the idea that Trump has done nothing to hurt LGBT people.
SISKIND: Yes, we are under assault and I think the community’s in great danger; he’s not going to stand up on stage and say “I am a bigot.” He’s going to slowly erode our rights and make us invisible. That’s what he is doing.
BLADE: What happens if Pence replaces Trump?
SISKIND: What’s going to happen, in either scenario, is that we’re going to be in chaos. I mean Trump isn’t getting anything done legislatively. And if he faces impeachment hearings or if he faces other criminal proceedings, nothing’s going to get done legislatively. But he still can slowly erode things.
Will Pence be any better or worse? We don’t know. We don’t know if Pence himself will be ensnared by what’s going on — I find it hard to believe he won’t be.
Regardless, I think it has to be a goal for everybody, every American. Any normal Republican is a better alternative than losing our democracy, which is what’s happening.
The basic rights that were afforded, including our voting rights and fair elections are, under Trump, under siege.
When people ask me that question you don’t know exactly how anything’s going to play out; you know it’s going to be chaos. Would I rather have Pence?
I’ll deal with that option when it comes to it, but I can tell you right now we’re in danger and I don’t think there’s anything that could be any worse than what we’re currently living in.
BLADE: With the Supreme Court decision to take on the wedding cake case on the same day it basically erased the line between church and state, it’s really hard to imagine we aren’t about to face a significant setback. It looks like the threat to LGBTQ people is spreading throughout government.
SISKIND: Well, if he’s able to appoint another Supreme Court judge — we just have to pray for our Ruth Bader Ginsburg that she stays alive until the 2020 election.
I worry about all of it. But I think we get sort of distracted if we just focus on what’s happening in the judicial branch because Trump is doing so much damage in the executive branch already, that people are just kind of numb to…that, I think, is the biggest purpose with what I’m doing with The List and the conversation you and I are having.
We need to raise awareness that already we are becoming invisible and that our rights are being eroded.
It’s hard to imagine exactly what will happen with the Supreme Court cases. You know, we’ve lost Scalia and gained somebody who’s maybe even further right than him.
I think probably the only issue that is NOT currently on the table is gay marriage, and that’s only because generations are so decidedly pro-gay marriage.
Everything else, though — you can be married and have every other right taken away from you, including the ability to have people make your wedding cake, host your wedding, or be discriminated against and beat up on the way back from your wedding.
I think our community has become so obsessed about the success of this one issue that we’ve forgotten about all the other issues that impact our daily living.
BLADE: This slipperiness is all playing out in the background of the Russia investigation. This is what is happening while we are all hyperventilating about Russia.
SISKIND: And that’s why every week in The List you can find all the events that are playing out.
If you put in LGBTQ it will show you all the items that have already changed. If you put in Muslim, you’ll see all the assaults on Muslim people. If you put in Black or African American, you’ll see the items about the nooses in D.C. or the gorilla mask in Tennessee this week. I’m really trying to keep a focus on every week’s list of what’s happening.
The fabric of our country is changing. We are legitimizing hate and it’s hate against everybody that’s not white, straight, Christian and male and I think there needs to be a much greater awareness within our community of the danger we’re in, what you normalize, what happened to that 17-year-old Muslim girl walking back to her mosque after having a meal at McDonald’s before starting Ramadan.
That could have been a trans student or a gay man or a woman walking down the street. It can be any of us that aren’t the same.
BLADE: Just as Trump eliminated Pride at the White House, he also eliminated Muslim celebrations.
SISKIND: He didn’t celebrate Cinco de Mayo either.
BLADE: He’s an equal opportunity eraser.
SISKIND: For anybody who’s not white, straight and male. But anybody in our community who is complacent is missing the boat, because you still have to be able to walk down the street each day, you have to be able to get a job, you have to be able to get housing and right now he’s making it legal to discriminate on all those things.
We can’t underestimate the danger that we are in as a community. Gay marriage is just a little piece of icing on the cake but we have to raise our children, we have to be able to work and live and be safe and all those things are under siege.
BLADE: Marriage is not safe. It they can create a system of laws that make it legal to deny you services, we are not equal.
SISKIND: Right, so it’s sort of like a tin victory! You can get married but we won’t make you your cake, we won’t host your reception.
BLADE: We won’t protect your right to your own children.
SISKIND: Right. Our community gets too hyper focused on marriage and has dropped the ball on everything else. People feel like “oh, we crossed that bridge and now it’s done,” kind of like women with abortion rights. It was 1973 and here we are in 2017 and talking about taking away Planned Parenthood.
Nothing is guaranteed. One victory on a single issue doesn’t mean everything else isn’t in danger of being rolled back. We have to remember also how far as a community we came and how quickly. I mean, this is been endemic in the women’s movement; big victories and then everyone’s like “Oh, good now everything’s done and we’re equal.”
No. It happens in every community. We have this huge victory and we like stopped agitating and stopped organizing and stopped worrying. And that’s a false hope.
We are in danger under this regime.
BLADE: How did you feel about the Resist marches across the country?
SISKIND: I marched in New York. As much as you can do in person…it’s sort of like fuel and it reinvigorates you. Our organization does a big event each year called National Girlfriends’ Networking day and so many of the young woman said to me ‘I needed this because I feel so disempowered.’
I think whatever you can do in person really is helpful.
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
Former Ambassador Daniel Baer explains it all on Ukraine crisis
Expert downplays strategic thinking behind Putin’s move
Daniel Baer, who worked on LGBTQ human rights and transatlantic issues as one of several openly gay U.S. ambassadors during the Obama administration, answered questions from the Washington Blade on Ukraine as the international crisis continues to unfold.
Topics during the interview, which took place weeks ago on Jan. 27, included Putin’s motivation for Russian incursions, the risk of outright war, predictions for Russia after Putin and how the crisis would affect LGBTQ people in Ukraine.
Baer was deputy assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and U.S. ambassador to the Organization of Security & Cooperation in Europe.
The full interview follows:
Washington Blade: What’s your level of engagement with this affair? Are you doing any consulting work? Is the administration reaching out to you at all?
Daniel Baer: I actually think the White House is doing a pretty good job of recognizing that they need to not only have press conferences, but also talk to other people who are trying to figure out how to be constructive critics, idea generators from the outside.
Blade: OK, so you’re being solicited and engaging on this issue. My next question for you is why do you think Putin is doing this at this time?
Baer: So, I guess taking a step back from the whole thing, one of the things about a problem like this is that everybody is searching for the right answer assuming that there is a like comfortable or compelling or intellectually accurate answer, and I actually think we’re just in a really hard moment.
I don’t know why he’s doing it now. And in fact, I think that one of the puzzles that we haven’t solved yet is that all the things that he says are the reasons that he’s doing it — that he feels encirclement by NATO, … or that the situation in Ukraine is untenable — none of those things have changed. Setting aside the fact that they’re spurious, it’s not like there’s been some new move in the last 12 months that has precipitated [a reaction] on any of those fronts that you can say, “Oh, well, he’s responding to the recent meeting where Ukraine was offered membership in NATO, or he’s responding to a change in government in Ukraine that it’s clearly anti-Russia, or any other move that we’ve done.” The explanation just doesn’t hold water, and so I think we need to look for alternative ones.
The best I can come up with is actually just a broad — it doesn’t actually explain this particular moment, but I think you could look at the timing of his life. He has, I don’t know, 10 years left. And during those 10 years, it’s unlikely that Russia is going to grow more powerful; it’s much more likely that it’s going to become at least relatively and probably nominally less powerful. And so, if you’re unhappy with the status quo, and you feel like you’re a declining power, and you don’t have endless time, there’s no time like the present. And you’ll make up whatever reasons you need to in order to justify it.
I also think there’s a tendency on our part to attribute far more “strategery” to Putin than there necessarily is. I mean, he’s a bully and a thug. I think the whole Putin’s playing chess and we’re playing checkers is actually completely inverted. We’re in our own heads that there’s some kind of nuanced position that would mollify him. He’s just a gangster and he’s taking a punch because he has one. And I don’t think it gets much more complicated than that. And so, I guess the answer to why he’s doing this now, because the international conditions are such that he feels like the United States is focused domestically, the Ukrainians are not moving forward with succeeding to build — they’re kind of in stasis on building a European state— and he has, you know, he has the space to take a punch, so he’s contemplating doing it, or he’s already decided to do it. And he’s just extracting as much as possible before he takes it.
Blade: That leads me to my next question: What is your judgement of the risk of out and out war?
Baer: I don’t know because I have two hypotheses that cut both ways. One is that I think Putin is vastly underestimating the degree of resistance. On the other hand, I think that nothing short of domination is satisfactory. And so, I don’t know. I guess I think there’s a 90 percent chance that he does something, and I think there’s a 75 percent chance that what he does is not an all out invasion or ground invasion, at least not at first, but rather something that is aimed at confusing us. So some sort of hybrid or staged or false flag kind of attack in tandem with a political coup in Kiev, where he works to install a more Russia-loyal leader.
The thing with the ground invasion is that Russian soldiers’ moms are one of the only, like, powerful political forces in civil society in Russia. I just don’t see any way that a ground invasion doesn’t involve massive Russian casualties, even if they will be dominant. The people who are going to impose the consequences on him will be the Ukrainians, not the rest of us, and he should not invade, and if he does, we should, frankly, work hard to make it as painful and difficult for him as possible.
Blade: What will that look like?
Baer: I think we should at that point continue — we shouldn’t pause, we should continue to send the defensive equipment and backfill as much as possible their ability from an equipment basis to resist.
Blade: So if we were to look at a model for past U.S. engagements. I’m thinking Greece under President Truman, which was so successful that nobody really knows about it, I don’t think. Is there any model we should be looking toward, or not looking toward?
Baer: No, I guess. I’m not sure there’s any good historical model because obviously, any of them you can pick apart. I do think that one thing that has gotten lost in a lot of the analysis — and this goes back to Putin being a gangster thug, and not being such a genius — is there’s a moral difference between us. The reason why Putin gets to control the dialogue is because he’s willing to do things that we aren’t willing to do — as gangsters are, as hostage-takers are — and so yes, they get to set the terms of what we discussed, because we’re not holding hostages. We’re trying to get hostages released. And the hostage-taker has an upper hand and asymmetry because they are willing to do something that is wrong.
We shouldn’t lose the kind of moral difference there. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is being menaced. And I’m not saying it’s our obligation [to intervene militarily], certainly not our obligation. They aren’t a treaty ally. We have neither a political obligation nor a moral one to necessarily risk our own lives, our own soldiers in defense of Ukraine. But if Ukraine wants to defend themselves, there’s a strong moral case to be made that anything, short of risking our own lives, is something that is morally good. We generally believe that self-defense from lethal threat is a reasonable moral cause and assisting others in defending themselves is too — I think there’s a lot of back and forth that get glossed over whether that’s a provocation or whatever, and I want to say to people stand back, look at this: we’ve got one party that is attacking another. And the question is, does the other have a right to defend itself? Yes. And if they have a right to defend themselves, and they also have a right to have whatever assistance people will offer them in defending themselves.
That doesn’t mean that they get to demand that we show up and fight in the trenches with them, of course, and I don’t think there’s any serious people who are recommending that but it’s a good thing to help them. It’s not like a technical thing. It’s a good thing to help
Blade: Getting into that moral background, one thing I want to ask you was about the significance of what would happen in this concept of democracy versus autocracy. First of all, how much is Ukraine a functional democracy, in the sense that if we’re defending Ukraine, we are defending a democracy, and what signal do you think it would send if that Ukrainian government fell to Russian autocracy?
Baer: I think the institutions of government that the Ukrainian people have are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment …
They are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment to the idea of democratic institutions. So the answer is today’s Ukrainian government is a mixed bag and it’s very hard to build, on the rot of a Russian fiefdom, a functioning democracy, so I think it’s a mixed bag. I don’t want to sound like I’m minimizing [the changes], or that they’ve completely bungled an easy project. It was always going to be a hard project, and it was never going to be linear.
But I think that what we’ve seen from the Ukrainian people — by which I mean not Ukrainian people, but people of Ukraine — is that there is a broad part of society that a) does not want to live under a Russian thumb and b) sees its future in kind of European style democracy. And so I think that if there was, there’s no question that the Russian attack would be in part about subjugating the people of Ukraine and forcing them to live under some sort of new Russian satellite. And I think that there’s little space for serious argument that that’s something that the people of the country wish to have.
Blade: But I’m just kind of getting at — you’re kind of minimizing that this is a strategic move by Putin, but if he were to successfully dominant Ukraine it becomes a Russian satellite isn’t that saying like, “Well, ha ha West, you thought the Cold War was over and there’s going to be just be a unipolar world in the future but no, we’re gonna we have this we’re back and we’re gonna create a multipolar world for the future.”
Baer: Yeah, I mean, my answer to the Russians who always raise the multipolar world to me is, “Fine, it’s going to be a multipolar world. What makes you think that Russia is one of the poles?” Poles by definition draw people to them, they are compelling and a pole attracts, magnetically or otherwise, and there is nothing attractive about the model that Russia is pursuing. And if the only way that you can be a pole is by subjugating, to force your neighbors, you are proving that you are not one.
I think the benefits for Russia are far smaller than Putin thinks and I think the consequences for the rest of the world of allowing a violation of international order to go forward are much larger than many people recognize.
Blade: But that was their approach when they were the Soviet Union. They were subjugating the Eastern Bloc through Russian force. They did have, in theory, the concept of their worldview of you know, of socialism, or whatever you want to put it charitably, was going to be the right way to go. Is there really that much of a difference?
Baer: Yeah, however disingenuous it was, they did have an ideology . So you’re right, that was a key distinction. The other thing is that the Soviet Union in relative size — its economy and population etc. — was much larger than Russia is today. And Russia is shrinking, and its economy is less diverse than the Communist one was. I think it’s a delusion to think that they’re going to kind of rebuild an empire, even if yes, because of their willingness to do awful things, they could potentially for a time politically control through violence, their neighbors. I just don’t — in a multipolar world, I don’t see Russia being one of the poles, at least not on its current path.
Blade: How would you evaluate the U.S. diplomatic approach to this issue?
Baer: There’s been very clear over-the-top effort to include the Europeans at every step — meetings with them before each meeting and after each meeting, to force conversations into fora that are more inclusive and stuff like that. And I think that Secretary Blinken is rightly recognizing the need to kind of play a role of kind of keeping everybody on the side while we test whether diplomacy whether there’s anything to do, whether there’s any promise with diplomacy.
I think there’s kind of, sometimes kind of, two camps in U.S. foreign policy circles. One is like: We should give the Russians what they want because it just doesn’t matter that much. War is much worse than anything that we would give them. And another is that we can’t give them an inch and we have to punch them in the face whenever we can. And I think both of those are kind of knee-jerk positions that have become a bit religious for people and neither of them is paying attention to the practical challenge that’s in front of the administration, which is like this guy’s threatening to invade and we need to identify whether there’s any opportunity for a functional off ramp, and that doesn’t mean we do that in a vacuum and ignore the long-term consequences, but our problem is not a religious one, it’s a practical one. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job of threading the needle on that and being not too far forward and not too far back.
Blade: Do you see any significant daylight between the United States and Europe?
Baer: No, I mean, no more than the minimum that is possible. There’s a lot of talk about Germany these days. Look, I think some of the things they say are not particularly helpful, but I don’t actually think that in the long run, if Putin invaded, I don’t think that they would hold up sanctions or anything like that. So I think they’re on our side, even if they’re talking out of both sides, in some cases.
Blade: I am wise to the fact that this is a nuclear power. It might be a little old school, but could escalation get that far?
Baer: There can’t be war. There can’t be war between NATO and Russia. It should be avoided. Obviously, there can be, but it should be avoided.
Blade: How committed do you think President Biden is to protecting Ukraine?
Baer: Reasonably so. I think he’s enough of an old school trans-Atlantist that he understands that this isn’t just about Ukraine.
Blade: I was wondering because he had those comments from his press conference about “minor incursion” and I’m just wondering if you’re reading anything into that or not.
Baer: No, I think that was that was a — I think broadly speaking, everything he says is in line with the kind of view that you would expect. And of course, one sentence can catch [attention]. That wasn’t what he meant. What he meant was that he didn’t want to draw a “red line” that would prejudge policy in response to something short of the most extreme scenario.
I think it is a good caution to not obsess over a single sentence and to look at the broad considered policy statements.
Blade: What do you think if you were looking for developments, like what would you be looking out for is significant in terms of where we are going to be going in the near future? This is one thing to keep an eye out for but is there anything else that you are kind of looking out for in terms of the near future?
Baer: I guess I would look out for whether or not the United States joins meetings of the so-called Normandy Format, which is the France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia grouping, which has so far been unsuccessful, but I think can only be successful as the United States joins it, but the Russians, I think have misgivings with the idea of our joining it.
Blade: I’m not at all familiar with that. What makes this forum particularly so —
Baer: So it was started in the summer in like June of 2015, on the margins of some meeting between Merkel and Hollande. The French and the Germans are very committed to the idea that they might be able to mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia. It was supposed to implement the Minsk Agreement, and it just hasn’t been productive so far. I don’t think that the Russians will do anything — I don’t think the Ukrainians feel comfortable negotiating anything without the Americans at the table. And I don’t think the Russians feel like anything is guaranteed without the Americans at the table. So I just, I’m fine with France and Germany taking the lead, but I think the U.S. has to be there.
And there was a meeting of this group in Paris yesterday, and which the U.S. was supportive of, and so I’m watching to see whether or not the United States gets added in some ad hoc way, whether there are future meetings. I guess the reason I would watch it, if the U.S. were to join future meetings that would signal to me that it’s actually there’s some diplomacy happening there.
That’s meant to be focusing mainly on the existing Russian invasion, the occupation of the Donbas, so that’s not about the threat of the new invasion, but it would be interesting to me if there was forward movement on other parts of Ukraine. The announcement of the American ambassador is one. I think that last week movement of troops into Belarus was a game changer for the U.S., because there are all kinds of new implications if you’re using a third country as your launchpad for war, and so it complicates things and it also looks more serious if you’re starting to deploy to third countries and stuff like that. So I think that was that last week, you noticed a difference in the U.S. tone and tenor in response to that.
So things like that. But in general, like what I would do and I don’t think people always catch this is because there’s a boiling frog aspect to it. There are statements coming out from the White House or State Department. Almost every day on stuff related to this and like last week, there was a noticeable change in the tenor as the U.S. became less, I think more pessimistic about the prospects of diplomacy and those I don’t have anything better to look for in those statements as tea leaves, in terms of what the U.S. assessment is of the prospects of the escalation are, so it’s bad.
Blade: Right. That’s very sobering.
There’s a lot of talk, and I’ve just been seeing some like about in terms of, there’s like comparisons to Afghanistan and making sure that all Americans are able to get out of Ukraine. Is that comparing apples to oranges?
Blade: And could you unpack that a little bit? I mean, I can kind of guess the reasons why. How is that apples to oranges?
Blade: Well, the level of development in Ukraine in terms of infrastructure and transport and stuff like that is not comparable to Afghanistan. I think it would be– if there were a Russian invasion–you would definitely want to, obviously, for safety reasons, it’s not safe to be in a war zone, so you would want people to be able to evacuate and you’d have to plan for that.
A major concern [in Afghanistan] was also that there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of locals who had worked for the Americans. The Americans that are in Ukraine are not a departing occupying power. There’s just not the same footprint there — the Americans are in Ukraine or there as business people or young [people working on] democracy assistance or whatever. And it’s just it’s a different context.
Blade: Why do you think the Russians put up with Putin? I mean, this is a country that was a world power and I would think has some economic potential just given its sheer size, first of all, and they do have oil to offer people. So why aren’t the Russians like angry at him for obstructing their participation in the global order as opposed to just putting up with him for years and years and years.
Baer: Successful instrumentalisation of cynicism. The lack of a belief in an alternative will keep you from fighting for it.
Blade: That’s pretty succinct.
Baer: I mean, I don’t think there’s any question that the people of Russia could be better off or different in terms of kitchen table issues, and ease of navigating the world, prospects for their future for their children’s future. The amount of money that Putin has invested into military modernization that Russia can ill afford, while he’s cut pensions and social services and health care. It’s just it’s objectively true that the average Russian person would be better served by a different leader. But he’s done a very good job of effectively selling off the country for profit and persuading people through repression and propaganda that there is no alternative.
Blade: And Putin won’t be around forever. Once he finally goes, is an alternative going to emerge, or will it be the next guy in Putin’s mold?
Baer: I think it’s far from clear that what comes after Putin isn’t worse and bloody. Regimes like this don’t reliably have stable transitions.
Blade: Wow, okay.
Baer: Yeah, we shouldn’t… we should be careful about wishing… wishing for his demise.
Blade: That’s good to know. It’s kind of a frightful note for me to end my questions. But actually before I sign off, there’s one more thing too because I do kind of want to talk about the intersection about your old job in democracy and human rights and then a Venn diagram of that with your experience in Eastern Europe in particular. Do you have a sense of what’s at stake for LGBTQ people in Ukraine or if they’re in more danger right now than they would be otherwise?
Baer: That’s a good question. I mean, my knee jerk reaction is yes. That — as mixed of a picture as Ukraine has been in the last seven years, or eight years — there have been meaningful steps forward, and certainly, in terms of visibility.
I guess, in the sense that Ukraine is better than Russia today, if you’re gay, if Russia is going to occupy or control Ukraine we can expect that it will get worse because it will become more like Russia.
Moore signs executive order to protect gender-affirming health care in Md.
Ivy Young, D.C. journalist, poet, and activist, dies at 75
Federal judge halts enforcement of Fla. trans healthcare ban
HRC declares national emergency over anti-LGBTQ laws
Events roundup: Federal gov’t celebrates Pride month
Elon Musk pledges to lobby for criminalizing healthcare interventions for transgender youth
Texas governor signs bill banning transgender youth healthcare
Gay Days 2023 will go on despite DeSantis and anti-LGBTQ animus
Upwards of 30,000 march in Jerusalem Pride parade
Federal judge rules Tenn. drag ban is unconstitutional
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
Politics4 days ago
Elon Musk pledges to lobby for criminalizing healthcare interventions for transgender youth
Texas3 days ago
Texas governor signs bill banning transgender youth healthcare
Florida4 days ago
Gay Days 2023 will go on despite DeSantis and anti-LGBTQ animus
Middle East3 days ago
Upwards of 30,000 march in Jerusalem Pride parade
U.S. Federal Courts3 days ago
Federal judge rules Tenn. drag ban is unconstitutional
Photos2 days ago
PHOTOS: GMCW’s “Dolly”
European Union4 days ago
Latvia elects first openly gay president
National4 days ago
LGBTQ literature advocacy org to host celebrity panel