President Donald Trump’s pick to manage the U.S. Department of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, is promoting a new “outcome-based” livestock management initiative on the public lands managed by the department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The agency has solicited its grazing permittees to submit their ranching operations for nomination to be among the 6 to 12 projects nationwide that will be part of this “demonstration program.” The stated purpose of the initiative is, “to show that livestock grazing on the public lands can operate under a more flexible framework than is commonly used in order to better reach agreed upon habitat or vegetation goals.” It might sound good, but, as always, the devil is in the details.
The BLM’s announcement of the initiative raised an immediate red flag because it included a statement from Zinke wherein he claimed that, “Farmers and ranchers know the wildlife and the land they work better than anyone.” Really? They know it better than the department’s professional wildlife biologists? And if ranchers know so much, then how come livestock grazing has done more damage to wildlife habitat on public lands than all other commodity uses combined? (Grazing is far more ubiquitous on public lands than mining, drilling, and tree cutting.)
The obvious message behind Zinke’s initiative is that the BLM’s current management of public lands grazing is unfair to ranchers. How? They don’t specifically say, other than to imply that it’s too rigid. The BLM explained that, “Grazing authorizations typically emphasize process and prescription. The new authorizations will instead emphasize ecological outcomes, allowing livestock operators more flexibility to make adjustments in response to changing conditions such as drought or wildland fire.” So it seems they believe that a proven prescription to achieve a desired ecological outcome is bad because it’s too strict, while more flexibility will magically provide an alternative to removing livestock from public land that has burned or is experiencing drought.
The BLM’s announcement also said that Zinke’s initiative will give local “stakeholders” a say in these demonstration projects, but it didn’t explain what that meant. Under existing federal law, the agency is required to employ the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public planning process when it implements a new livestock management plan for a grazing allotment. The NEPA process is important because it provides the general public with their only significant opportunity to provide input into livestock management on public lands. Zinke’s initiative is a demonstration project, so it’s unclear if NEPA applies, but it seems they are trying to invent a new public participation process, when a good one already exists.
I called the BLM’s national office on November 6 to ask them if the general public will have any opportunities to participate in the formulation of these new “flexible” grazing management plans. I was told that they don’t know, and that I should call my state BLM office to ask that question. So then I called the Arizona BLM office. They told me they don’t know either because they haven’t received any direction yet from the national office.
Perhaps my inability to get an answer about Zinke’s grazing initiative is simply because it’s a new program and the BLM hasn’t sorted out the details. But it’s a proposal from the Trump administration, and Donald Trump has already proven to be the most anti-environment president in modern history, and a threat to the perpetuation of the multiple use doctrine on our public lands. So I have good reason to fear that the general public’s opportunity to participate in this demonstration program will be restricted. It’s important that it’s not, because the BLM manages more than 21,000 public lands grazing allotments on millions of acres across the West and they plan to expand the use of this new process if they deem it to be “successful.”
On March 28, 2018, the BLM announced announced 11 demonstration projects in six states for the Trump administration’s outcome-based grazing authorizations initiative.
Despite the fact that Republicans control the presidency and Congress, they have failed to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling, and it’s costing U.S. taxpayers a lot of money.
Congress authorized the accumulation of federal debt on a case-by-case basis until the 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I. That year it decided to establish an overall federal debt ceiling to provide more financial flexibility in order to finance the war effort. Since then, Congress has continued the strategy of authorizing debt ceilings.
In recent years, however, the authorization of debt ceiling increases has become a politically contentious process, despite the fact they are needed to pay for expenditures that have already been made. So Congress has resorted to temporarily suspending the debt ceiling. During these suspensions, the U.S. Treasury is authorized to borrow enough to pay all of the government’s existing commitments, irregardless of the most recently authorized debt ceiling. But when the suspension expires, the debt ceiling reverts to what it was before the suspension. The most recent suspension was passed in November 2015 and expired in March 2017, which reinstated the 2015 debt ceiling.
Subsequently, the Treasury has been unable to borrow enough money to meet its obligations since then, because the federal government has a budget deficit. They have been limping along using some accounting tricks. But it’s estimated that these emergency measures will be exhausted by the beginning of October.
This means that, unless the debt ceiling is increased before then, the federal government will be in default on its bond interest payments, which will hurt the nation’s credit rating. It will also be unable to pay other bills and there will be at least a partial government shutdown. Furthermore, the federal government’s 2018 fiscal year begins on October 1, and Congress still needs to approve annual appropriations bills. If these budget issues aren’t soon dealt with, there will be some very big problems.
But even if they get these things done in time, the Republicans have already cost us a lot of money. That’s because the “extraordinary measures” the Treasury has been forced to use to fund the government since March are more expensive than issuing government bonds, the method the Treasury normally uses to raise the money it needs to pay the bills that exceed the revenue collected from taxes. (Paying interest on bonds is relatively inexpensive these days because the Federal Reserve has been holding down interest rates in order to stimulate the economy.)
On July 26 Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said during a Senate hearing that the Treasury’s extraordinary measures in 2017 had already cost taxpayers $2.5 billion. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did not dispute the amount and agreed the situation was creating extra costs. It’s undoubtedly cost us much more than that by now.
The reluctance of Congress to raise the debt ceiling is driven by the growing concern about the increasing federal debt, which began a dramatic increase during the Reagan administration. Economists say that the reduction of federal budget deficits must be accomplished with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases in order to avoid harming the economy. But these types of political agreements are difficult, and far-right congressional Republicans have made them more so in recent years by using the authorization of debt ceiling increases as a weapon to engage in political brinkmanship, such as the government shutdown they instigated in 2013. They seem oblivious to the fact that their behavior is making the thing they’re worried about worse.
Solving these important federal budget issues is also complicated by the fact that President Donald Trump has exhibited an alarmingly limited understanding of how the U.S. government works. He’s publicly criticized the Congressional Republicans he needs to work with, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan. And he’s threatened to shut down the federal government if Congress doesn’t authorize funds to build the wall he wants to erect along the Mexican border. In addition, there’s the need to pass legislation as soon as possible to aid the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Furthermore, Trump’s decision to end the Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in six months has added major immigration reform to Congress’s agenda.
In the meantime, Congress seems to be making little headway on Trump’s tax reform and infrastructure spending proposals – two of his major campaign promises. And, of course, there are the constant distractions created by his controversial behavior, along with the ongoing investigations into his presidential campaign’s collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. The whole situation is pretty much a scary clown show.
After white supremacist Dylan Roof executed nine black people during a Bible study session at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17, 2015, it was discovered that he had a website with links to Confederate sites and a photo of him proudly holding a Confederate battle flag.
South Carolina’s Republican Governor Nikki Haley responded by calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from a flagpole on the state’s Capitol grounds. “We are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer,” she said. “The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand.”
The flag had been erected in 1961, officially as part of the state’s Civil War centennial celebration, but really as a symbol of Southern opposition to the growing African-American civil rights movement.
On June 23 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump weighed in on the topic by saying that the flag should be taken down and put in a museum. This was before Steve Bannon took charge of Trump’s election campaign.
On July 9 Gov. Haley signed legislation authorizing the removal of the flag and the following day a large crowd applauded as it was taken down.
Governor Haley’s success in getting the Confederate flag removed encouraged others across the U.S. to call for the removal of Confederate memorials in their communities, including people in states as far away as Arizona.
On December 17, for example, the New Orleans Orleans City Council voted to remove four Confederate statues from city property, including the Robert E. Lee statue erected in 1884 at Tivoli Circle. The removals were put on hold pending the outcome of opposition lawsuits. But on March 6, 2017, the U. S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuits and the statues were removed.
The growth and success of these local initiatives angered right-wing extremists. Earlier this year they responded to a decision by the Charlottesville, Virginia, city council to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a municipal park, by organizing a Unite the Right protest rally to be held in Charlottesville August 11-12, 2017.
The U.S. Department of Homeland (DHS) security notified local law enforcement officials on August 9 that the protest would likely result in violence. They warned that white supremacists and anti-fascist “Antifa” extremists had clashed twice before in Charlottesville over the removal of Lee’s statue, at a white nationalist rally on May 13 and a Ku Klux Klan gathering July 7.
On the night of the 11th a procession of far-right protesters that included white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis, and right-wing militia members marched through the city’s University of Virginia campus. They chanted Nazi and white supremacist slogans while carrying lit tiki torches and briefly scuffled with counterprotestors before the state police broke it up.
Things got much worse at the next day’s protest. There were more protestors on both sides and the far-right protestors included people carrying Confederate flags and wearing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” caps and giving the Nazi salute while shouting, “Hail Trump!” The police failed to prevent violence from breaking out, a local state of emergency was declared, and the situation became deadly when a far-right protestor named James Alex Fields Jr. purposely drove a car into a crowd of counterprotestors, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. (A police helicopter also crashed on route to scene, killing two state troopers.)
President Trump didn’t say anything publicly about the events in Charlottesville on the first night of the right-wing protest. But he responded to the second day’s violence by telling the country that he condemned “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” His speech was widely criticized for failing to explicitly condemn white supremacists and Nazis, and his repetition of the phrase “many sides” created an inference that he put them on the same moral plane as the counterprotestors.
He responded to the criticism by defending himself in a speech on August 15 wherein he said that he’d already condemned neo-Nazis, but not all of the right-wing protestors in Charlotte had been neo-Nazis or white nationalists. “You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.
Trump also seemed to defend the right-wing protestors by sympathizing with their reason for organizing the march – the city’s plan to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee.
“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” he said. “So, this week, it’s Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
At a rally he held in Phoenix, Arizona, a week later he repeated this excuse, telling the crowd that, “They’re trying to take away our culture. They’re trying to take away our history.”
A subsequent national poll found that 54 percent of Americans agreed with Trump that Confederate monuments “should remain in all public spaces,” while 27 percent said they should be removed, and another 19 percent said they didn’t know. (Unfortunately, the poll failed to identify whether or not the respondents lived in former Confederate states.)
A closer look, however, shows that Trump’s argument isn’t based upon facts. For example, after the South was defeated in the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was against monuments to the Confederacy. When he was invited to the Gettysburg battlefield in 1869 to help place granite monuments to mark the positions that had been held by Confederate units during the battle, he declined. “It is wisest, morever,” he wrote, “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
A comprehensive report, issued in 2016 by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) shows that many Confederate monuments aren’t really historical markers, but attempts by neo-Confederate groups, like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy, to help promote the Lost Cause, a longstanding historical revisionism campaign designed to portray the Confederacy as a benign entity. Proponents of this myth claim that the old South had a superior culture and the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but about states’ rights. In other words, there was a moral equivalency to the causes for which the North and the South fought the war. The Confederacy just happened to have lost the war. Civil War historian Edward H. Bonekemper III has called the Lost Cause, “the most successful propaganda campaign in American history.”
I presume that some of the people who want Confederate monuments maintained simply feel that we shouldn’t be tampering with history. But in 1967 the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) changed the word nigger to Negro in 143 geographical place names. And after World War Two, the new German government outlawed the public use of Nazi symbols. Were those changes wrong?
I’m not saying that all Confederate monuments should be removed, just the ones that primarily serve to glorify the memory of the Confederacy. General Lee, in fact, advocated for just one type of Confederate memorial. “All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen,” he wrote in 1866.
The graves of Confederate soldiers should, of course, be maintained. So should historically oriented Confederate monuments at Civil War battlefields. But even these concessions may have been frowned upon by most of the Union soldiers that survived the Civil War. In 1869 former Union soldier William T. Collins wrote an eloquent policy statement for distribution by the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), the largest Union Army veterans organization. His purpose was to explain why the GAR was opposed to allowing the graves of Confederate soldiers in public military cemeteries to be decorated on Memorial Day.
We strew flowers therefore on the graves of our comrades, and prevent their being strewn in the national cemeteries at the same time, on graves of such rebel dead as may be buried therein, not because we cherish any feelings of hate, or desire to triumph over individual foes, but because we seek to mark in this distinction and manner the feelings with which the nation regards freedom and slavery, loyalty and treason, Republican principles and those of a slave-holding oligarchy.
We are ready to forgive – we hold no malice – but we will never consent by public national tribute to obliterate the wide gulf that lies between the objects, motives, and principles for which we fought and our comrades died, and those for which the rebel armies banded together, and for which their dead now lie in numerous graves.
They were brave, and we know it – none can better appreciate that fact than those who fought against them. But mere courage never ennobled treason. It cannot turn slavery into liberty, nor make despotic intentions desirable and to-be-applauded virtues. Our refusal to decorate rebel graves marks not hatred of their occupants or friends, but our undying hostility to the ideas for which they fought and died. To do less than keep this distinction fresh in the national mind is to undermine the republic itself. – William T. Collins
I don’t propose that we should resume the practice of preventing the graves of Confederate soldiers from being decorated. But reconciliation must be based upon honesty, not the falsehoods embodied in the Lost Cause. Former Confederate Col. John S. Mosby felt this way when he wrote a letter in 1907 in which he complained that proponents of the Lost Cause mythology were distorting history by downplaying slavery as the cause of the Civil War.
What other country on Earth, I ask you, would allow memorials on public properties to a traitorous rebellion that cost the lives of more than 360,00 loyal soldiers, and wounded at least 280,000 more? A dare say none. The hundreds of Confederate monuments that exist today, especially those dedicated to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, are a testament to the effectiveness of the propaganda that promoted the historical revisionism of the Lost Cause.
The removal of monuments that glorify the Confederacy doesn’t create a slippery slope that endangers all of American history. It’s easy to tell the difference between a monument to the Confederacy from one that isn’t. Nor will their removal solve the daily problems of Americans, including the black people who still suffer in poverty due, in part, to the legacy of slavery. But sometimes there are more important things than money, and cultural symbols matter. The truth is that the removal of Confederate monuments from public places isn’t an attempt to “take away” our history, it’s a way to begin to dismantle the historical revisionism that led to their creation. It’s a way to restore the truth – something that Donald Trump often ignores when it’s convenient for him.
On June 4, 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report showing that more than 1,700 monuments, place names and other symbols honoring the Confederacy remain in public spaces.
On October 2, 2018, U.S. Attorney Thomas Cullen announced at a news conference in Charlottesville, VA, that four members of a militant white supremacist group from California had been arrested on charges they traveled to Charlottesville last year to incite a riot and attack counter-protesters.
On April 26, 2019, Pres. Trump defended the comments he made about the violence in Charlottesville, VA, in 2017 wherein he claimed there were, “some very fine people on both sides.” He said he had “answered perfectly” about the events, and that Confederate General Robert E. Lee was “a great general.”