WEEK 15

WEEK 15

Two personal reflections. One is that having confused Andrew Cuomo with his father Mario shows my age. The second one is that I realized that being concerned about the unimaginable reveals my fears.

Repression.

Repression targeted at particular groups, rather than against individuals who are suspected to hold anti-regime postures, may well be supported by other groups. What is repression against some groups may be cooptation for others. Rozenas (2020) observes, "A group that is supportive of the regime becomes an even stronger supporter when another group is repressed, because it infers that the repressed group will be deterred as it does not expect the supportive group to reciprocate in opposing the regime." The use of group-targeted repression may also just cater to crass prejudices: anti-Semitic in Nazi Germany, anti-Muslim in contemporary Myanmar, anti-Indian in El Salvador. Strictly distributive considerations play a role: restricting the access of Jews to some professions in Nazi Germany created opportunities for non-Jews. The waves of repression in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were unleashed to protect the leaders from the ire of the masses by scapegoating the "bureaucrats," and the repression was supported by many workers and peasants. So it is possible that, on various grounds, masses of people can support violent repression.

Repression comes in two varieties: preventive and reactive, a distinction due to Tiberiu Dragu. The first line of defense of dictators against their potential opponents is prevention, routinely exercised by specialized security agencies, often called simply "Security." Secret police as well as other agencies seek to detect and "nip in the bud" any potential opposition. They seek to identify dissatisfied individuals who are the center of larger communication networks by relying on informers, intercepting communications, planting listening devices, and the like. The "nipping" may entail physical elimination of potential adversaries, imprisonment, economic sanctions, prohibitions to travel, intimidation, blackmail, psychological and physical harassment. Prevention may also include censorship, dissemination of false information and rumors, and distorting communication among the potential opposition. As described by Antonio Scurati in the second volume of his biography of Mussolini, a well designed system of preventive repression can be almost perfectly effective. Tiananmen Squares are major failures of dictatorships, which is perhaps why China has subsequently developed an elaborate and subtle system of preventive repression. No dictator wants to face a situation in which public dissent had grown sufficiently powerful to necessitate a large-scale military intervention. The military is neither trained, specifically equipped, nor motivated to engage in domestic repression so that using them to squelch protests is the last resort. Moreover, relying on the military involves considerable political risks both because the military might simply refuse to obey an order to repress or because it may overthrow the dictator.

Can Trump construct an effective system of preventive repression? Some of the legacy media are clearly intimidated, settling frivolous suits initiated by Trump. Some law firms bribe him to cease actions against them. Almost all universities, Harvard and Princeton being notable exceptions, just cave in. I know of no systematic evidence about individual postures but I do know people who switched to communicating by Signal, who erase their mails and purge their computers, who hesitate traveling abroad for fear of inspection at reentry, who revive or obtain dual citizenship. Whether all this already adds up to effective intimidation is still doubtful, as evidenced by continuing public protests. Whether it will add up to effective intimidation may depend on how incompetent the Biondis and Patels turn out to be.

The American society does not have the technology for opposing governments. In some, mainly Scandinavian, countries there are elaborate systems of corporatist bargaining that process demands of the opposition. In some other countries -- France, Italy, Spain, Argentina -- the main technology of the opposition are strikes and street demonstrations. Neither of these ways of opposing government policies is customary in the US. It may because of the sheer size of the country and its federal structure: getting millions of people to Washington is not easy. It may because of the weakness and decentralization of the unions: to my best knowledge, there has never been a general strike in the US. It may be because neither political party has the capacity to bring people to the streets. I do not know. The fact is that moments of massive mobilization have been extremely rare in the US.

One of my nightmares entails an event equivalent to the Reichstag fire of 27 February 1933. This fire was set by a lone Dutch communist but it was used to suspend civil liberties of everyone. It was an important event in ushering in Hitler's dictatorship a few weeks later. My fear is that something happens that can be and will be used by the President to usurp extraordinary powers. The President would claim that such powers are necessary to make the country secure from the immediate danger, and that, in the model of the Roman dictatorship, such powers are only temporary, to be lifted as soon as the danger to the country is eradicated. Some large segment of the public opinion accepts these claims and supports the repressive measures.

Universities

Secretary Noem just informed Harvard that "This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country." I have two reactions. I wonder to what extent this letter represents a general populist animus against the elite. Kristi Noem went to Northern State University, did not finish college, but subsequently obtained a BA from South Dakota State University. Would she have wanted to go to Harvard but could not even dream of getting in? Is it just sour grapes? But whatever is Noem's motivation, the resolution of the Harvard conflict will have profound consequences for the future of American elite universities. The advantage is on the side of the government: it can deprive Harvard of its tax exemption, it will tax the returns on its endowment at 21% rate, it already froze all its federal research funds, and by Noem's decision it invalidated visas of its 6,800 foreign students. But Harvard is a powerful institution. According to Wikipedia, its alumni include 188 living billionaires. It's graduates include several public figures, among them the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. Will a sufficient number of the 188 billionaires be willing to save their alma matter? Will Roberts uphold the charge that Harvard is "coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party"? It took Harvard less than 24 hours to get a temporary restraining order but this conflict is far from over.

Columbia was charged again with violation of Charter VI, which prohibits discrimination. Such charges legally require the government to release the findings of its investigation and are subject to a legal process that gives a university the right to contest them. Moreover, the charge was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, which has no legal authority over the matter: legal authority rests with a body within the Department of Education, now practically defunct.

Bottom of the barrel. The university where I am emeritus professor, New York University, is withholding the diploma of a student who in his commencement address condemned Israeli actions in Gaza. The verbal gymnastics used to justify this measure would not shame Goebels. I am surprised how many university trustees and administrators show to have no values and, I think, no brains. No brains because yielding to the government's demands does not temper its aggressive measures.

The Trump administration

I had hoped when I started this Diary that I would understand more as the events unravel. Now my view is clouded by emotional reactions. I am struck by the unmitigated cruelty of this government. Immigrants live every moment in fear, not just of being deported but of being sent to El Salvador or Sudan. Bona fide foreign students, kids thousands of miles away from their parent, panic about their leases, fear not being able to return if they go home for the summer; some have no place to return to because of repression in their home countries. American kids wonder what they are going to eat when school lunches are no longer available. Disabled people fear cuts of their services and supports. Fired federal employees scramble for jobs. Transgender people find themselves with no place in a society in which they do not exist by a government decree.

There is no semblance of law. Yes, there are many temporary restraining order and their number increases by the day. But the government is not restrained. It launches one illegal action after another, against immigrants, against law firms, universities, government agencies, individuals. Some of these actions are announced by executive orders, the legal scope of which is murky. Notably, while all these orders begin with "By the authority vested in me in the Constitution," some continue to say "and by laws," which are enumerated, other orders leave it at the Constitution because there are no laws enabling the particular action. The reaction of some people I interact with is often "But this is against the law." So what? Just consider Columbia: it could legally contest the use of Title VI by the government but processing it in the courts would take years and money. The strategy of the MAGAs is to ignore laws and let any opposition to their actions simmer for an indefinite time in the courts.

The ass licking, to use Trump's language, is mind boggling. People who threw most derogatory epithets at Trump now use every opportunity to adulate him. They do not even bother to explain how they changed their mind. Past words just evaporate and now we have the greatest president we have ever had, as great as George Washington. Trump's maniacal performances, such as the recent meeting with the President of South Africa, are just testimonies to this wise leadership.

Why? Why cut funds for cancer research of universities that have Middle Eastern centers with pro-Palestinian sympathies? Why gut the weather service that provides hurricane warnings? Why withdraw Global Entry privileges of someone who thought Trump lost the 2020 election? Why pursue a specialized medical journal for being "partisan"? Why let the measles epidemic expand? The list of the why's is endless. These measures will not make Trump richer, so this is not a viable explanation. Some of government's actions can be explained by its desire to reduce expenditures, some by the anti-elite impetus, some by its instinct to seek revenge. But so many appear to be just stupid, undertaken without a regard for the consequences, whether political or economic. Granted, every government makes mistakes. But I think there is something systematic about dictatorships.

In somewhat stylized terms, what may be happening with the Trump regime goes as follows. There is a Leader (Duce, Führer, Vozdh) who demands absolute loyalty from his subordinates. The subordinates know that they will be rewarded for implementing the will of the Leader. They compete for his attention. Lines demarcating their authority do not matter: the head of HHS Department tries to catch Leader's attention by doing something that formally can be done only by DoE Department and if the Leader notices and likes this action, the head of the HHS jumps in his approval above the head of DoE. Sometimes the subordinates go farther than the Leader would want; sometimes they do something the Leader does not approve. Such mistakes, however, are not due to a lack of expertise, but only the uncertainty inherent in the impossibility of the Leader to fully articulate his will. Sometimes the Leader has to step in to adjudicate conflicts. Some of his underlings may be pushing tariffs while others may want free trade; some may be concerned about deficits while others believe that they will pay for themselves. Moreover, envy and jealousy cannot be avoided when the underlings compete for the Leader's favor. Mussolini claimed that resolving such conflicts took most of his time. Yet, whenever loyalty is the only criterion of performance, chaos must ensue. The only purpose of the subordinates is to please the Leader. Formal authority, consideration of material consequences, or compassion have no place in their competition.

I think this model -- which is what it is -- goes some way to explain why so many of Trump's underlings appear to be just nuts. Moreover, Trump himself is often confused and incoherent. He frequently changes his mind, as when suddenly announcing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a "European problem." Guessing what he wants today as opposed to the day before may be difficult. Does Trump really want to destroy American research universities? Does he have revenge feelings particularly against Columbia, Harvard, or Northwestern? Or is it just a guess by his overzealous acolytes? He obviously wants to reduce taxes on the rich: he went to the Capitol to pressure Republican House representatives. Yet he cannot pay attention to everything, in particular since he spends some part of his time, "private time," to get rich. He is fed misinformation, sometime blatant fabrications, such as the photographs taken in the Congo during his meeting with the President of South Africa. But actions taken without his prior knowledge commit him. Once a conflict becomes public, he cannot afford to be defeated, he must pursue them to demonstrate his power. Hence, he must stand behind every action of his subordinates whenever they attract public attention. The damage they inflict is not a consideration.

Last minute

The State Department just instructed US Consulates to postpone sine die making new appointments for visa applications of students or exchange visitors. I find it exceptionally painful for personal reasons. During my teaching years, I had hundreds, if not thousands, foreign students. I directed 64 doctoral dissertations, of which 49 were written by students from 15 foreign countries. Nothing in my academic life was not as rewarding as this experience; not publications, not honors, but classes filled with students coming from different cultures, perspectives, and life experiences. From the early 1980s until I retired, most students in my graduate classes were foreign..I remember a seminar at the University of Chicago in which I discovered that Latin Americans read little and talked a lot, while Koreans almost never talked. At one point I learned from my Korean research assistant that there was a strict seniority hierarchy among Koreans, all male at that time, and that the junior among them were not supposed to speak until the most senior did. They were also mortally afraid of ridicule, so they prepared their interventions in class carefully over several weeks, with the result that when they were ready to speak, they would deliver a contribution that had nothing to do with the topic of the moment. The following year, I walked into class announcing that in my seminar Latins will shut up and Koreans will speak. It worked and many of them formed cross-cultural friendships that last until today. Some became prominent scholars in the US, some returned to their countries and brought with them the intellectual experience that shaped them for life. Several became friends. I have visited them in their countries, still keep regular contacts with several, and still collaborate with some on new projects. Indeed, much of what I know today about the world comes from these contacts. And, importantly, the American students in these classes learned perhaps even more.

US universities were the Mecca of science. For several decades they were the best in the world but what was distinctive about them was that they were open to the entire world. English became the second language in history, after Latin, to become the universal language of science. Leading scholars in many countries are people educated in the US, in disciplines ranging from biology to economics. Many of their graduates became heads of states or governments in their countries of origin. There are currently more than 1 million foreign students in the US, they support 378 thousand jobs, and contribute $43.8 billion to the economy. But these numbers dwindle in importance in comparison to the scientific and cultural impact of US universities around the world. It is unique in history.