Madeleine Albright was on Fresh Air yesterday to talk about her new book: Fascism: A Warning and about the fascist trend.

Albright was the first woman secretary of state. She was appointed to that position by President Bill Clinton in 1997, after having served as his U.N. ambassador. Her new book examines how fascism took hold in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. Then Albright moves on to look at current authoritarian leaders in several Eastern European countries, Turkey, Russia and North Korea. One chapter is devoted to President Trump, whose election, she says, added to her sense of urgency in writing this book. Albright is now a Distinguished Professor of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.

…

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: …And part of the reason for writing it is to say that in fact this can happen in countries that have democratic systems, that have a population that’s interested in what is going on, that is supportive. Because so many of the things that have happened and happened in Czechoslovakia were steps that came as a result of ethnic issues with the German minority, but mostly steps that seemed not so terrible that there couldn’t be a deal made. And so that’s what’s so worrisome, is that these fascism can come in a way that it is one step at a time, and in many ways then goes unnoticed until it’s too late.

GROSS: One step at a time within the system?

ALBRIGHT: Within the system, and partially because it is a way of undermining democracy and the democratic institutions that are the basis of democracy, or criticizing the press or thinking that there are those that are enemies of the people and are the cause of distress or a bad economic situation. And it kind of works on the fear factor rather than the hope factor.

She talks about the fact that fascism presents different faces, so it’s easy to miss the early stages because the face is different.

GROSS: Would you just do, like, a roll call of democratic countries that you see turning authoritarian today?

ALBRIGHT: Yes. And that’s what’s so unfortunate about it because what we really do have are – in Europe, for instance, the prime example is Hungary with Viktor Orban, who is now talking about illiberal democracy, which is basically a way to deal with whoever is not, in his description, a Hungarian so he can go after immigrants. There are – then in Turkey we’re seeing a problem where in fact Erdogan, who was elected popularly, has accumulated a lot of power and wants to change the rules and the laws and the constitution in order to be able to be there longer. We have the fact that Poland is kind of mimicking what Hungary did. And then what we have in Europe also – and these are friends and allies – are other countries where there is an element of those that are taking advantage of the fear factor in some way, as I said.

For instance, in Germany, all of a sudden there’s a very far-right party that is now in the parliament. We just saw the elections in Italy, which are also parties that are on extremes are taking advantage of a particular situation. Then we have the issue in the Philippines, where Duterte thinks it’s terrific to kill drug dealers and talks about all the things that he has accomplished in that particular way. And then of course we’ve got what’s going on in Russia with Putin.

And then I have to say what I find – and this all has kind of happened since the book was written – is what in fact has happened in China with the changing of their constitution in order to make Xi Jinping be able to be a lifelong leader of a party. So there are a number of different places, but I think that the ones that really looking at what is happening in Europe and then of course in our own hemisphere, with Venezuela. That is another example of a country where initially Hugo Chavez came in as a result of the fact that the tired old men that were running the place before had not really had a relationship with the people. And then Chavez changes, and he becomes an authoritarian and, I would say, a fascist.

So, given all this variation, it becomes difficult to come up with an overarching explanation. Why is this happening in all these very different places? Add in Brexit, by the way, as Albright says later.

Albright says something generic about technology and divisions.

And then the other part of this, which I think is essential, is there is some leader at the top who takes advantage of these divisions and, in fact, exacerbates them so that the societies are more and more divided and wrangled and looking for scapegoats, which is where the immigrants come in. But mostly, this is something that’s created internally by massive changes in society and some of them due to technology.

I don’t know. I think those divisions are always there. In our case for instance…you could argue this wouldn’t have happened if The Apprentice had never happened, so how central are “the divisions” really?

GROSS: Let’s talk about what’s happening in the United States. I want to read a passage that you write in your book, “Fascism: A Warning,” a passage about President Trump. You write (reading) we’ve never had a president, at least in the modern era, whose statements and actions are so at odds with democratic ideals. Trump has spoken harshly about the institutions and principles that make up the foundation of open government.

In the process, he has systematically degraded political discourse in the U.S., shown an astonishing disregard for facts, libeled his predecessor, threatened to lock up political rivals, bullied members of his own administration, refer to mainstream journalists as enemies of the American people, spread falsehoods about the integrity of the U.S. electoral process, touted mindlessly nationalistic economic and trade policies and nurtured a paranoid bigotry toward the followers of one of the world’s foremost religions.

Do you think that President Trump has the instincts of an authoritarian leader?

ALBRIGHT: I think that he is the most anti-democratic president that we have had in modern history and that his instincts are really in that direction. And I think that that’s what worries [him]. And the passage that you read really does show that what he’s trying to do is undermine the press and has disdain for the judiciary and the electoral process and minorities. And I think that his instincts are not ones that are democratic. And he is interested basically in, I think, exacerbating those divisions that I talked about. And so I am very concerned. And basically, this is – you know, I’d written the book because I have picked up that phrase, see something, say something. And I am seeing some things that are the kinds of things that we’ve seen in other countries. And so I’m saying not only should we say something, but we have to do something about it.

I think she didn’t mean that “him” I put in brackets – it makes more sense as “me” or “us.”

Anyway…I would have put it a lot more firmly, but then I’m not a former government official. Of course Trump has the instincts of an authoritarian leader; there’s no question about it. He makes a display of them every day.

A little vignette of what it’s like to play at Being the Government with Trump in the room – a slice from a longer piece about ogod ogod it’s chaos he’s so nuts he blows off everything anyone suggests to him ogod ogod.

And now, the little vignette:

Aides often become frustrated with the President’s short attention span. One official described Trump as frequently meandering from the topic at hand in meetings, particularly if he believes the positions being aired by his advisers differ from his own point of view. He’ll stall sessions with non-sequiturs, complaining at random about Amazon’s tax status or proclaiming that he’s only visited Russia once, for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.

We all know that guy, right? It can be a relative, it can be an acquaintance, it can be a guy who corners you at a party – but we all know that guy. We know that guy who is numbingly voluble yet has nothing to say. We know that guy who obsesses weirdly over three or four outrages and never makes any progress.

It sounds Alzheimersy and it may be, but it may be just one of those empty-headed but nevertheless opinionated and talkative dudes who are always busy explaining something to somebody somewhere.

In Mueller news – he does have the authority to investigate the things he’s investigating.

Paul Manafort’s legal strategy for evading the charges filed against him by special counsel Robert Mueller was fairly straightforward. His attorneys argued, among other things, that many of the charges Manafort faces — which include fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy — are largely outside the scope of Mueller’s authority. After all, Mueller was appointed to investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the 2016 race. What does Manafort’s allegedly having laundered money by buying real estate in Brooklyn have to do with any of that?

Trump fans have been saying that, noisily all along. Problem: it’s not true.

Late Monday night, Mueller’s team answered, in the form of a 53-page response to Manafort’s motion to dismiss the charges. Not only did Mueller explain why he had the authority to prosecute Manafort for alleged financial crimes, but, in a footnote, he explained why he also has the authority to investigate any attempts to obstruct his probe — including, presumably, by the president of the United States.

Short version: Rosenstein said so back in May when Mueller was appointed.

When he was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May (after Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from any investigations involving the 2016 presidential campaign), Rosenstein issued a public outline of the scope of Mueller’s authority. We’ve walked through this before; it includes three main things:

• “Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”
• “Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
• “Any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).”

That section of the Code of Federal Regulations — 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — allows Mueller to investigate “federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation,” including lying to authorities.

Matters that may arise directly from the investigation. Manafort’s matter done ariz.

But the response memo also reveals that Rosenstein issued a confidential memo in August detailing areas that Mueller had the authority to investigate. Among those were specific allegations involving “crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” Those payments are at the heart of the indictments filed against Manafort. The allegation is that he laundered the money he received and didn’t properly report its receipt or his advocacy for Ukraine.

And there’s more. Mueller’s got permission piled on permission. Trump fans can’t scream it out of existence.

Learn something new every day. Today-I-learned that Sinclair has employment contracts that say employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired. That sounds illegal to me, but apparently it’s not.

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112

If you can’t read the screenshot – it basically just says “employees have to pay Sinclair MUCH MONEY if they quit or are fired” in more legalese and detail.

That helps explain why they can’t just say “No” when Sinclair tells them to read lying canned bullshit on camera.

Taslima asks a pointed question.

Why are they so interested to take pictures? pic.twitter.com/Ze0ZGWxR24

— taslima nasreen (@taslimanasreen) April 3, 2018

I have to say, I’m a little grossed out by all those shameless naked hands poking out. They’re obviously doing it on purpose – carefully pushing their naked nude unclad hands out front so that we can’t not see them. The sluts.

Suzanne Moore has a lot of sympathy for Niall Ferguson and other endangered guys like him.

Up steps the latest victim, poor Niall Ferguson, author, history professor and lover of empire, who wrote in the Sunday Times that he had to endure a “disproportionately vitriolic response” for organising a conference that featured only white male historians. How he has suffered, I can only imagine.

Jordan Peterson, another minor academic, became major simply by outlining how wrong we are to talk of the various ways in which western culture has been deemed oppressive to women. Excuse me, but didn’t Camille Paglia do that 20 years ago?

To such men, any notion of inclusiveness, or of the dread “diversity”, becomes a threat. The very presence of women, except as tokens, is difficult and somehow invasive for such men. Never mind the debate over trans women in women-only spaces, the issue here is really one of any women at all in any space.

The brand of truth-telling these battle-scarred men are revered for situates men as both always naturally in control but as now having to fight for their position.

Or not so much having to fight for their position as having to fight not to hear it. They don’t want to hear it; they’re sick of it; they wish we would shut up already. They don’t hate women, ok? They like women just fine. They try to include some women, when they remember, and it always turns out the women have to polish the baby that day or something so they say no so what are the poor men supposed to do? Think of even more women to invite? That would be a superhuman effort, and no one can expect that – so enough already. We know; everybody knows; we do our best, when we think of it; now stop pointing out how absent-mindedly sexist we still are and let us get on with the conversation we’re having with these nice gentlemen here.

The call to victimhood of this “endangered” species is heard everywhere, from Nigel Farage to John Humphrys to Jeremy Clarkson to Piers Morgan. These men who dare to speak out are everywhere in public life, at the top of every organisation, having meetings about how to employ more women. They are forced into this by Europe, modernity or some godawful HR directive. They like to say they care about FGM or the massacre of the Rohingya, but see complaints about equal access or equal pay as white noise.

Or not so much white noise as excruciatingly irritating high-pitched complaining by ungrateful bitches who weren’t on the list of women they remembered to ask.

Trump and Pruitt are putting their shoulders to the wheel, or their feet to the floor, pushing us to create more and more and more pollution to make American great again.

The Trump administration openly threatened one of the cornerstones of California’s environmental protections Monday, saying that it may revoke the state’s ability under the Clean Air Act to impose stricter standards than the federal government sets for vehicle emissions.

The announcement came as the administration confirmed it is tearing up landmark fuel economy rules pushing automakers to manufacture cleaner burning cars and SUVs.