In evaluating this report on Berkeley Police racial profiling, we have examined in Part 1 some of the failures of inclusion in the data that would have produced a clearer picture, and in Part 2, some of the implications of the actual racial disparities in the practices of the BPD. Not only were those disparities gross, but they raised certain questions about the “recognition factors” with respect to drivers that the police use which have resulted, whether intentionally or not, in significant differences in which racial groups get attention in traffic stops. Part 1 is to be found here . Part 2 is to be found here.

******

On black people being singled out

There is another statistic given in the report that suggests a different view of race itself, and in which this “recognition factor” lurks.

The CPE report has been successful in providing evidence that there is significant racial bias and inequity in police practices and behavior. The equality of stops across three populations of vastly different sizes (approximately 13,500 of each) testifies to a huge disparaty in police practices. If, as the CPE researchers say, Berkeley PD has a much better record than most other cities they have studied, it implies that those other cities must have fallen on truly apartheid conditions. The problem that emerges in terms of this "equality" of three groups of traffic stops is how the police are able to pick out black people for traffic stops at a rate far beyond the black fraction of the population. We have concluded that there is a search involved, but it must also be associated with a focused recognition factor. 

Inside the recognition factor

To begin with, let us make note of a graph in the report whose title is “Percentage of Stops Resulting in an Arrest, by Driver’s Race, 2012-2016.” (fig 7, p.25) This graph has already generated some questions here as to why an infraction might result in more than just a ticket? 

For Asians, almost 3% of stops result in arrest. For black drivers, 1.9% result in an arrest. For Latino drivers, 2.1%. For whites, 1.2%. These are small numbers. But as a percentage of all the stops over a 5 year period for each racial group, the number is far from trivial. For whites, it amounts to 160 arrests over the 5 year period (from a population of around 65,000). For black people, the number is 260 (from a population of 9,500). For Latinos, it comes to 106 (pop. 13,000). Once again, black people are bearing the brunt. As figures, they don’t particularly stand out from the others. Another graph shows the percentage of traffic stops that result in a search. For whites, that comes to 5.3%, for Black drivers, it is 20.2%, and for Latino drivers it is 15.1%. Again, these figures affirm what we have encountered, that black people are subjected to inordinate demands by the police, beyond what their population would warrant. 

Since the arrest numbers over a five year period are small, it raises the question, why couldn’t the nature of the arrests be specified in the data given the CPE? Could there have been something in that list that might have been incriminating, such as those video-ed acts of officers pulling drivers out of their cars and throwing them to the ground? Is that far-fetched? 

But let us turn to the companion graph entitled “Percentages of stops resulting in a citation without an arrest by driver race, 2012-2016” (Fig 6, p. 24). And this one seems to break the pattern. 

While 46% of white stops resulted in a citation, the number of black stops that resulted in a citation was only 24%. Presumably, if a traffic stop did not result in a citation (nor in an arrest), then the driver was simply told to travel on. For white drivers, this apparently happened 54% of the time, while for black drivers, it happened 76% percent of the time. Given the total number of stops of drivers from each of these two groups (which are essential equal in total number of stops), white drivers appear to have been ticketed at twice the rate of black drivers. 

But we are left with the fact that three quarters of the time, black drivers were stopped and then not cited for anything. Given the high degree of attention paid to black drivers by the BPD, what does this low citation rate mean? It does not relate to group population size, nor to the percentage of black stops. It simply states there was no good reason for the traffic stop. One can say the same for white stops. Half the time, when they are stopped, no reason is found for a citation. 

Let us use this fact of white stops as a norm. Inventing a measure based on white experience as a norm for other races is clearly a mistake. But in this case, it will be useful as a way of measuring what happens to black drivers. What the white case provides, as a norm, is one in which roughly 50% of the stops result in no citation (or arrest). That is what happens to white drivers. Let us apply it to black drivers. If 24% of their stops result in citations, then it would be "normal" that 24% of the time no citation would be issued (in equivalence with white citation rates). But that leaves 52% of the black stops for which there was no reason at all, except the desire to stop a black driver. That implies that 52% of the black stops were purely gratuitous. 

To stop a driver is to inconvenience them, and to subject them to an unexpected break in their daily routine or social plans (although in some cases maybe not so unexpected). It is to take an active stance toward (against) the person the officer has noticed (regardless of the reason). To act against a person for no reason is to harass. In its gratuitousness, it is similar to stalking or bullying. It is to do something to another person without the other having had any participation in bringing it about. To render another an object in that sense is to assume a lesser social status for them. And concomitantly, it is to assume an entitlement on the part of the stalker or harassing person. Or rather, to aggress actively out of a sense of entitlement is to produce that lesser social status. The call for equity by social justice movements is a call for undoing the inequity that such procedures (of harassment) produce. 

We can define a “harassment quotient” for each racial group, namely, the degree to which gratuitous action is taken against them. The harassment quotient for black people in Berkeley (with respect to traffic stops) would be 52 (representing the 52% of gratuitous stops beyond the "norm"). Since Asians and Others were cited in 40% of their traffic stops, their harassment quotient is 20 (representing the excess over twice their citation rate). For Latinos, cited 33% of the time, the harassment quotient is 34. These are liberal estimates, because we are using police behavior toward white people as a standard. But they provide a kind of ball park figure by which to measure the harassment that people of color experience when driving. 

This notion of a harassment quotient (HQ) is further affirmed in the graph on the percentage of stops resulting in searches (Fig 8). Black people are searched 4 times more often than white drivers when stopped. To harass signifies a deep-seated desire to harass. This is not just racial profiling. It is part of a structure of harassment, which is both intentional and desired by the police. 

 

Summary

Racial profiling is harassment, but only a single dimension of it. Though spoken in a sardonic tone, “driving while black” is essentially a euphemism for harassment. It represents a procedure involving singling out certain people for harassment, which means to adopt an active stance toward (against) their existence, and for no other reason. 

It is black existence that is the core of the "recognition factor" with respect to black people, that singles them out from an environment of other people of color. In effect, it is not just color to which the police are responding. We are not just dealing with prejudice here, though that is part of the driving force of harassment. Black people are being "recognized" for their existence as African Americans, at a different rate and for a different purpose than other people of color. And the degree to which this is the case, given the small size of the black population in Berkeley, implies that there is a policy dimension to police harassment practices. Unfortunately, the CPE researchers had to assume implicitly that this could not have been the case. 

Harassment is not a goal in itself for the one who harasses. Harassment is a result of a desire to actively aggress. As an element of policy, it exists as both an individual desire and an institutional desire. As an institutional desire, it indicates pre-meditation, a pre-meditated desire to aggress, for which the harassment of its target is the result. As pre-meditated, each act of harassment by a police officer is a criminal act. And so is every act of racial profiling, as a dimension of harassment. 

Fifty years after Jim Crow was torn down, and the type of behavior that made Jim Crow work had been declared illegal, we are still only doing studies. Studies may be necessary, but there is also an element of deferral inherent in their nature. It focuses on an unspecified future for what should have been resolved in the past. 

When the police look for black drivers to stop, it is to act toward them in a way that, as an act of harassment, will reduce them to lesser social status. People have a lesser social statuts (are de-privileged) only to the extent they are actively subjected to a reduction in social status by others. It is not inborn. It is produced by those who have the power to produce it. 

If race is one of the concepts under which entire groups of people are subjected to lesser social status, then "race" is produced by that process of reduction. That is, it is the result of a process of racialization. All racialization signifies the production of “lesser social status” because it generalizes, and thus reduces individuals to de-individualized state. This is true even when the generalization is intended to be complimentary. In the US, the real political conflict is not between racists and anti-racists; it is between the racializers and the racialized. Racialization is more than "racism." It is a deeper social process than that. 

In harassing black drivers, and thus black people, as a gratuitous activity, the police are playing a role as racializers through their harassment. Police harassment of black people establishes the police as agents of that process of racialization. When white people act in a similar way toward black people, we have to recognize that they do it fundamentally as their way of being white. After the civil rights movements, it is primarily the police who have been able to do that because black people are unable by law to respond, to defend themselves, to equalize, or to object or refuse. To do so, it has been shown, can get one dragged out of one’s car. 

Let us sum this up. "Race" is something that one group of people does to others. White people are not born white; they are made white by white supremacist society. Black people are not born black; they are made black by white supremacist society. In other words, "race" is not a noun. It is not something inherent in people. It is verb. The verb is “to racialize.” It is something that white people do to others, making "others" “non-white” in order to be "white" as not-them. Race is not only a verb, it is in all aspects relational. 

One component of this process of reduction of "others" to lesser social or cultural status is to see them as threats in order to exercise gratuitous hostility and harassment against them – often covered up by patronizing and objectifying attitudes. One becomes white then by adopting a self-defensive posture. 

If "race" is a verb, then in the US it is white people who occupy the subject position of that verb, thrusting those they racialize into the object position of the verb. It is through inhabiting that subject position that white people obtain their sense of entitlement over POC. And it is on this basis that true subjectivity and autonomy, when encountered in the behavior of a person of color, is punished in the US. We have seen the suppression of the Panthers, the bombing of the MOVE organization, and the continuance of racial profiling by the police, as elements of this rejection of the other’s autonomy and subnectivity. When Breaion King or Rebecca Musarra were dragged out of their cars for speaking or not speaking, they were being assaulted for their sense of autonomy and subjectivity. 

We know the struggle against racial profiling is a political struggle. It means that we are up against an organized political interest and a political project. It is in those terms that the federalization of urban policing extends beyond the reach of mere reform. 

There is a difference between accepting remnants of the old Jim Crow structure that continue to lurk in US institutions, and the idea that government agencies have decided to build a new one. It marks the difference between completing a process of rectification through reform and sensitivity training, and a future-oriented intentional sense of purpose whose goal will mock all such training and reform. 

Racialization is not "racism." "Racism" as such may be the socio-pragmatic appearance that racialization takes, but it is a result of the racialization process, not a cause. It is not just that the police are racist. They are an active part of societal machinery that produces "race" through its processes of racialization. And in functioning as part of that societal machinery, the police (and white people to the extent they do) racialize themselves as white. 

 

At least one person was injured following a shooting in Berkeley early this morning, according to police. 

Berkeley police said gunshots were first heard by officers in the area of 1000 block of Delaware Street around 1:20 a.m. today. Soon after, calls from residents also reported the shooting. 

According to Berkeley police Sgt. Chris Bonaventure, the victim suffered injuries not considered life-threatening and was transported to a hospital for treatment of what appears to be a gunshot wound to their toe. 

The bullets from the shooting also struck two homes, Bonaventure said. 

The shooting is under investigation. Police didn't name any suspects.

Well, the political season has started in earnest now. An outraged citizen just forwarded to me a letter signed only “Buffy”. Here’s how it starts:

“I’m incredibly proud to announce my endorsement of R*** K***for Berkeley’s City Council District 1. R** brings exactly the kind of progressive and practical leadership we need on City Council.”

Say what? Who’s this we, White Woman?

The fair Buffy is the very exemplar of chutzpah: a recent buyer of a $2 million house in Oakland’s Rockridge daring to tell us strong-minded Berkeleyans what “we need” on our own city council.

As the lynch-pin of the Stop Bernie campaign in the 2016 California Democratic primary, she has some nerve(and I say that as one of the minority of Berkeleyans who did vote for Clinton.)

We don’t do things that way around here.

Just this week, most of the several credible candidates for the AD15 State Legislature seat that Buffy's been trying to buy her way into announced their support for her opponent, Richmond Councilmember Jovanka Beckles: 

• Dan Kalb, an Oakland councilmember who got almost as many votes as Jovanka, has strong environmental expertise and was endorsed by the Sierra Club.
• Judy Appel (whose roots in Berkeley go way back) has concentrated on education as a Berkeley School Board member, was endorsed by the teachers’ union, and has effectively critiqued Wicks’ ties to wealthy charter school proponents. She won the support of many old-line Berkeleyans.
• El Cerrito Vice-Mayor Rochelle Pardue-Okimoto, a nurse endorsed by the nurses’ union, has also endorsed Jovanka,.as did her powerful union.

Beckles, Kalb, Appel, and Pardue-Okimoto all together received 60,157 votes in the primary, as compared to Ms. Wicks total of only 37,141. 

Another candidate, East Bay MUD Commissioner and attorney Andy Katz, another Sierra Club environmental activist, came out unequivocally, as did Beckles, against the ongoing attempt by some developer-funded Democratic state legislators to pre-empt local control of land use, as exemplified by bills sponsored by Senators Scott Wiener and Nancy Skinner such as the much-reviled SB827. 

Wicks, on the other hand, has whole-heartedly joined the pro-developer team and taken their money, so it was very unlikely that Katz would endorse her. 

I talked to Berkeley Councilmember Ben Bartlett, who hadn’t announced an endorsement at the time this was written, at a South Berkeley block party on Saturday, and he strongly hinted that he was leaning Beckles' way. As a fellow African American in the June race, it would be very surprising if he did not jump on the Beckles band wagon.  

In an ideal world, Jovanka Beckles would enthusiastically invite all of these well-qualified progressive former rivals to advise her campaign and form a sort of “kitchen cabinet” if she wins. As a start, I saw her posing for a photo op with Andy Katz at the Berkeley Progressive Alliance campaign kickoff in Berkeley yesterday. 

Even better, legislative aides in Sacramento have traditionally been very powerful and important, and it would be to her great advantage (and to ours as constituents) if Jovanka could persuade one or more of these excellent people to join her staff. 

The national political situation is so dire that it’s hard to focus on state and local politics, I know. 

California is so much better in every way than Rest of Nation that we are tempted to become complacent, but national problems have a way of trickling down to the local level. 

When the DNC’s troglodytic establishment inserts their operative Buffy Wicks into our local race for the state legislature, and when she in turn attempts to control Berkeley City Council choices , we’ve got problems right here in River City.  

There are already at least two good candidates with a wealth of Berkeley experience vying to succeed Linda Maio in District 1, and there’s no earthly reason for an Oakland Rockridge resident to jump into the fray. 

Is she the vanguard of a Democratic machine takeover of the Berkeley City Council? Will her endorsements in our other November Berkeley council races be forthcoming? 

More on this later. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Berkeley Police Officers Threaten to Resign and Disband SWAT Unit If Council Doesn't Allow Participation in Urban Shield

Where's my Berkeley cop? The majority of the Subcommittee on NCRIC and Urban Shield has gone to great lengths to craft a report and recommendation that respects the officers of the Berkeley Police Department. Contrary to some accounts, the subcommittee has charted a course that takes very seriously the training needs of the department, including the need to participate in Urban Shield tactical scenario training. Berkeley police officers must now defer to City Council's role in the political reform of Urban Shield. 

Tactical scenario training is important

SRT - the Berkeley Police Department's Special Response Team - is a valuable community asset. Their record shows that they bring life-saving and peace-keeping value to the community. Chief Greenwood has written eloquently of SRT's importance both for the community, and as a career option for officers. 

In Urban Shield Tactical Scenario training, SRT and other City of Berkeley responders have practiced critical skills and learned new ones. Berkeley's reponders have benefited from observation and critique of their performances. Bringing Berkeley-specific training and policy to the competition, Berkeley's team is even prize-winning. 

Chief Greenwood has told us that there is a profound risk that if the City Council orders a one year suspension of Berkeley's participation in the tactical scenario training, the Special Response Team will suffer attrition and possible dissolution. This would be a quite significant loss for the City of Berkeley. 

I acknowledge that there is some risk - nobody has argued that it is a large risk - that not participating in this training in 2018 will decisively harm the team's and department's readiness. This risk is not enough to justify the ultimatum Chief Greenwood, acting as messenger, has conveyed from certain officers. 

The Supplemental majority report of the Berkeley City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee on Urban Shield documents many problems with Urban Shield. There is no room here to adequately summarize the extensive report; here are a few highlights: 

The problematic political messaging in some scenarios is well reported. Perhaps less appreciated is how it distracts from training for the kinds of emergencies that are more likely to occur here. The training might be improved by contemplating the tactical problems of post-earthquake mass homelessness and panic rather than, say, the possibility of a Hezbollah invading over the border with Mexico and setting up camp in Northern California (an actual Urban Shield tactical scenario). 

Deeply worrying is that in some instances, tactical scenarios have been designed for product placement sold to the highest bidder from among the trade show vendors. By analogy, how would we feel if medical schools were selling out their curriculum design to the highest bidding pharmaceutical companies? 

For a long litany of reasons like these, the subcommittee majority is recommending that Berkeley withdraw from the tactical exercises in 2018, and review the possibility of participation in 2019. In the meantime, Council would continue to call for significant reforms to Urban Shield's corporatized structure and strangely militarized agenda. 

Berkeley's withdrawal from tactical exercises and the trade show in 2018, should Council enact it, would represent an action taken by one body of elected officials (Council) towards another elected official (the Sheriff). The Urban Shield reforms the subcommittee recommends - some of which the sheriff, under pressure from other sources as well, is already implementing - are part of a political process. Officers of the Berkeley Police Department should not interfere with this political process. 

The path forward

If the subcommittee majority's recommendation is adopted, Berkeley will withdraw from the tactical exercises and trade show in 2018, and review the possibility of rejoining in 2019. 

If certain officers will quit rather than defer to City Council's role as Berkeley's political authority, that is tragic for the City, but it is less tragic than allowing police department employees to dictate what are, ultimately, political and legislative choices.

The President of the United States capitulated beside the Russian president when asked what he said to Putin about Russian interference in our elections. Trump said he believed Putin's denials and blathered irrelevantly on and on about Hillary's email server. He dismissed the deep and detailed evidence compiled by our security agencies - NSA, CIA, FBI - and by the Special Council's investigation, calling them "witch hunts," deferring instead to Putin.  

He publicly called our closest trading partners and military allies "foes" in the presence of a real foe. His wimpy performance is worse than disgusting; it is treasonous. He is weakening our alliances while supporting our adversaries.  

In a democratic nation of law, impeachment is the appropriate remedy.

The sham that Israel is a democracy has once again been exposed with the announcement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that “his” country’s existence as the “nation-state of the Jewish people.”  

Israel cannot claim to be a nation of the Jewish people and a democracy, - the two are incompatible. A true democracy affords equal rights to ALL its citizens, Christians, Jews and Palestinians. 

What about the rights of the indigenous people, the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli terror groups Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang? This inconvenient truth was confirmed by Israeli Jewish historians Ami Pedahzur, Arie Perliger, and Benny Morris. 

The new law declares “Jewish settlements as a national value” and that the state will “encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation” – code language which will be used to further colonization of Palestinian lands throughout all the territories occupied or controlled by Israel. 

The law’s endorsement of Jewish settlements removes any geographic limits, which means it encourages Israel’s ongoing colonization of the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. 

There are currently more than 65 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens in Israel and Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories. 

Here are a few examples: 

Israel forbids Palestinians from mourning the loss of their country, called the Nakba, when 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homeland.  

The Israeli finance minister reduces funding to any institution that commemorates the Nakba. 

Israel stipulates “Israeli lands” can only be leased or sold to Jews. 93% of the land belongs to the state and Palestinians are virtually locked out of any land purchase. 

Ban on family unification plan prevents family unification when one spouse is an Israeli citizen and the other is a resident of the occupied territories. 

The draconian Absentees' Property Law confiscates the land, homes and personal assets of Palestinian refugees who were driven from their homes in 1950. At the same time, the Law of Return (1950) gave Jews from anywhere in the world the right to automatically become Israeli citizens. 

According to the Interior Ministry. since 1967, nearly 15,000 Palestinians from East Jerusalem have had their residency rights revoked. The remaining Palestinians, can have their residency rights revoked if they leave Jerusalem for an extended period. According to Human Rights Watch revocation of residency rights is a clear violation of International law.

Former art museum to be turned into scientific research hub

"The Woo Hon Fai Hall building, previously home to the Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive, or BAMPFA" (2626 Bancroft Way), "is a city landmark that will be part of a new research center called the BioEnginuity Hub."

......"While the final designs for the building are in development, 40,000 square feet of wet laboratory -- where experiments involving highly dangerous substances can take place -- and office spaces will be available by the time of completion...."

8-story, 122-unit housing complex planned for Bancroft Way (2580 Bancroft Way)

"The planned development, which will be named 'The Standard', will replace several local businesses and will target students who wish to live near campus."

UC wins management contract for Los Alamos laboratory

"The Management and operating contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory was awarded to the UC Board of Regents, the Battelle Memorial Institute and the Texas A&M University Systen last month by the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration......"The UC will take a leading role in the management partnership among the three institutions, which will operate as Triad National Security, LLC or Triad, according to UC President Janet Napolitano"....We have been involved in the management of Los Alamos for 75 years and I am pleased to say that we will continue that involvement," Napolitano said at the Wednesday regents meeting." 

 

Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Of course the job of the prophet is far more difficult than the job of the historian. So until that decision is made it seems that the majority vote could go either way. For those who support the right of women to have abortions, there are reasons to be both hopeful and worried. Consider the 1973 Supreme Court decision, when the justices approved the right to abortion. Surprisingly, among the seven out of nine justices that voted in favor of abortion, five were Republican appointed justices. Moreover, four of these five justices were conservatives! They did so despite the strong opposition of the Catholic Church. 

The Supreme Court almost twenty years later, in 1992, reconsidered Roe v. Wade. The court voted to reaffirm the right of women to have an abortion. Three of the justices who voted to affirm Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents. Two of the Justices, who were chosen by Ronald Reagan, had been critical of Roe v. Wade. But it was a close vote of five to four. Actually, the original informal count was five to four to abolish Roe v. Wade. But one of the justices, Anthony Kennedy, got cold feet and changed his mind at the last moment. Although Roe v. Wade was saved by a majority vote the number of judges who voted in 1992 to retain Roe and Wade has declined since 1973 by two votes (from 7 to 5 votes in favor). 

Among the reasons that Roe v. Wade is still alive is that public opinion probably played a role. On many political issues, one sector of the public often benefits at the expense of another sector. However, the right to abortion serves the interests of virtually all members of the public regardless of class, race, and ethnicity. According to a recent Gallup poll, nearly two thirds of Americans want Roe v. Wade to stand. Only thirteen percent of Democrats favor repealing the decision. Also a small percentage of Independents oppose the right to abortion. Although most Republicans support abolishing Roe v. Wade, it is by a very slim majority of fifty-one percent. So even a substantial number of Republicans oppose eliminating the right of women to have an abortion.  

It can be argued that public opinion is irrelevant. After all, since these judges enjoy lifetime appointments, they are politically invulnerable. However, their interests are not only personal. As members of a political party, many are likely to be concerned with the larger political implications of their decisions. Overturning the right to an abortion can adversely impact the Republican Party. Over forty percent of voters claim that they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports abortion services. In other words, the decision of the Supreme Court could have a spillover effect. In particular, a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade could benefit the Democratic Party at the expense of the Republicans. 

But those justices who have a strong ideological position, such as a commitment to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, may not be moved by pragmatic considerations. In fact, President Trump's nominee of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is a religious Catholic who was schooled by Jesuits. As a D.C. appeals court judge, he was the only justice to vote against allowing a pregnant 17-year-old girl who was here illegally to have an abortion. If his Catholicism will mainly shape how he votes on Roe v. Wade, which seems very likely, shouldn't he recuse himself from voting on this issue? h About how the justices will eventually vote on Roe v. Wade. we have been surprised before and may be surprised again. Admittedly, the control of the Supreme Court by the undemocratic majority makes the task of retaining Roe v. Wade very difficult. Nevertheless, It is immensely important to convey to the Supreme Court that it would be unconscionable and unreasonable for a handful of justices to violate the democratic rights of millions of Americans.

Most Americans were outraged by Donald Trump's performance at his July 16 press conference with Vladimir Putin. Trump's collaboration with Russia is the latest evidence that he's determined to ruin the United States of America. Why don't congressional Republicans stand up to him? Do they hate America, too?

After 545 days in the White House, Trump is emboldened to say and do, and Tweet, whatever he feels like. There's no evidence that anyone can restrain him -- certainly not his daughter, Ivanka, or his beleaguered Chief-of-Staff, John Kelley.

There's a plethora of arm-chair psychoanalysts with opinions about why Trump behaves like he does. However, we've travelled miles beyond the point of trying to understand why Trump acts out; whether it's because he is crazy or a Russian collaborator or obsessed with becoming the anti-Obama. What's most important is that Trump endangers the United States of America.

If the American people are going to stop him, we're going to need the assistance of Republicans. Are they going to help us or are they going to pretend that Trump's behavior is okay? When will Republican members of Congress stand up to Trump? 

Consider the critical issues and what the Republican response should be. 

1.Russia is at war with the United States. During the October 22, 2012, presidential debate, Mitt Romney called Russia America's "biggest geopolitical threat." At the time, many observers scoffed, but it turns out that Romney was right. David Corn and Michael Isikoff's book, Russian Roulette, indicates that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin has declared cyberwar on the United States and its allies; the 2016 political campaign was the most evident manifestation of the new Kremlin offensive. 

On July 13th, Trump's director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats (a Republican), said: "The persistent danger of Russian cyberattacks today was akin to the warnings the United States had of stepped-up terror threats ahead of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. 'The warning lights are blinking red again.'" (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/dan-coats-intelligence-russia-cyber-warning.html ) 

It's clear from his July16 Putin press conference that Trump does not believe Russia is waging cyberwar on the U.S. In the run up to the 2018 midterm, Republican candidates have to take a stand: either they believe Russia is at war with us, or they don't. Either they are willing to take steps to protect us, or they aren't. 

2.Trump is undermining America's traditional alliances. At the same time that Trump is cozying up to Putin and Russia, he is weakening our relationships with our traditional allies. During his recent trip to Europe, Trump denigrated NATO -- our strongest military bulwark against Russia. He also belittled the European Union -- the United States' largest trading partner -- calling it "a foe." 

While in Europe Trump insulted German Prime Minister Merkel -- Germany is our 5th largest trading partner -- and England's Prime Minister May -- England is our 7th largest trading partner. In May, during the meeting with the G7, he insulted Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau -- Canada is our second largest trading partner. (For the record, Russia is our 30th largest trading partner.) 

Republican candidates either have to side with Trump -- America goes into the world alone -- or support our traditional allies -- America is part of a coalition opposing Russia. Republican candidates have to be asked if they support Trump's foreign policy. 

3.Trump's trade war threatens the U.S. economy. Trump has verbally attacked our largest trading partners (European Union, China, Canada, Mexico...) and levied tariffs on their products. The resulting trade war is causing domestic job losses and raising prices. 

By the way, Trump's trade war helps Russia. Because of Trump's actions, China (our second largest trading partner) has stopped buying U.S. soybeans and has tripled purchases from Russia. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/china-buys-record-amount-of-russian-soy-as-it-shuns-u-s-growers ) Incidentally, Trump's sanctions on Iran are also helping Russia sell oil. (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/09/trump-iran-sanctions-give-saudi-arabia-and-russia-more-clout.html ) 

Republican candidates should be asked: How are Trump's trade policies affecting your state/district and what do you plan to do about it? 

4.Trump tax cuts have not revived the economy: Trump's massive tax cuts were supposed to raise wages. According to a recent Bloomberg article (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-18/trump-s-tax-cut-hasn-t-done-anything-for-workers), "The tax reform hasn’t yet resulted in appreciably higher wages for American workers. Real average hourly compensation actually fell in the first quarter after the tax reform was passed." In addition, "[The] tepid rate of [GDP] growth means that the tax cut is unlikely to pay for itself." 

Incidentally, the Republican tax plan dramatically raises the national debt. An April Reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-deficit/republican-tax-cuts-to-fuel-historic-u-s-deficits-cbo-idUSKBN1HG2RW) reported a CBO finding, "The massive tax cuts signed into law in December, which Republicans said would pay for themselves, will balloon the U.S. deficit in years ahead." 

Republicans candidates should be asked: What's your plan to raise wages for American workers?  

5.Trump has not drained the swamp. Trump ran for President as an outsider, harnessing voters concerns about Washington dysfunction. But instead of fulfilling his promise to "drain the swamp," he has fomented an unprecedented culture of corruption. Besides his collaboration with Putin, Trump has engaged in an orgy of self-dealing. His cabinet members -- most recently EPA head Scott Pruitt -- have resigned because of ethics concerns. 

Republican candidates should be asked: What are you doing to end the Trump culture of corruption? 

In the 2018 election, Republican candidates should be asked: Which side are you on? Do you support Trump or the United States? 

---

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at bburnett@sonic.net