Amid
revelations of Donald, Jr.,’s misguided meeting with two Russians, the
President shows once again where his only loyalties lie.
By David Remnick | The New Yorker
In
the September 11, 1989, issue of The New Yorker, a twenty-eight-year-old
writer named Bill McKibben published a lengthy
article titled “The End of Nature.” The previous year had been
especially hot––the country suffered one of the worst droughts since the Dust
Bowl, Yellowstone was ablaze for weeks––and some Americans, including McKibben,
had taken note of the ominous testimony that James Hansen, a nasaclimatologist,
gave before a Senate committee, warning that, owing to greenhouse gases, the
planet was heating up inexorably. McKibben responded with a deeply researched
jeremiad, in which he set out to popularize the alarming and still largely
unfamiliar facts about climate change and to sharpen awareness of what they
implied for the future of the planet and humankind:
Changes in our world which can affect us can happen in our lifetime—not just changes like wars but bigger and more sweeping events. Without recognizing it, we have already stepped over the threshold of such a change. I believe that we are at the end of nature.
By this I do not mean the end of the world. The rain will still fall, and the sun will still shine. When I say “nature,” I mean a certain set of human ideas about the world and our place in it. But the death of these ideas begins with concrete changes in the reality around us, changes that scientists can measure. More and more frequently these changes will clash with our perceptions, until our sense of nature as eternal and separate is finally washed away and we see all too clearly what we have done.
Last
week, a hunk of Antarctica the size of Delaware, weighing a trillion metric
tons, hived off from the Larsen C ice shelf and into the warming seas. Such
events now seem almost ordinary—and harbingers of far worse. It is quite
possible, the environmental writer Fen Montaigne wrote recently, in the Times,
that, should the much larger West Antarctic Ice Sheet thaw and slip into the
ocean, sea levels across the globe could rise as much as seventeen feet. This
would have devastating implications for hundreds of millions of people,
disrupting food chains, swamping coastal cities, spawning illnesses, sparking
mass migrations, and undermining national economies in ways that are impossible
to anticipate fully.
Around
the time that this event was taking place, Donald Trump, who has lately
detached the United States from the Paris climate accord and gone about
neutering the Environmental Protection Agency, was prowling the West Wing of
the White House, raging Lear-like not about the fate of the Earth, or about the
fate of the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who was dying in captivity, but about
the fate of the Trump family enterprise. In particular, he decried the awful
injustice visited upon him and his son Donald, Jr., who had, in
a series of e-mails last June, giddily advertised his willingness to meet
with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer, to
receive kompromat intended to undermine the reputation and the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. He did not mention another participant in the
meeting: Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-born lobbyist, who admitted to the A.P.
that he had served in the Soviet Army, but denied reports that he was ever a
trained spy.
The
President argued that his son, “a high-quality person,” had been “open,
transparent, and innocent.” This was a statement as true as many, if not most,
of the President’s statements. It was false. Donald, Jr., had
concealed the meetinguntil he could do so no longer. Social-media wags
delighted in reviving the Trump-as-Corleone family meme and compared Donald,
Jr., to Fredo, the most hapless of the Corleone progeny. This was unfair to
Fredo. On Twitter, Donald, Jr., had spoken in support of cockeyed conspiracy
theories and once posted a photograph of a bowl of Skittles, writing, “If I had
a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a
handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem. . . . Let’s end the
politically correct agenda that doesn’t put America first.”
Still,
the President, loyal to nothing and no one but his family, argued that “a lot
of people” would have taken that meeting. Leaders of the U.S. intelligence
community did not whistle their agreement. They were quick to say that such a
meeting was, at best, phenomenally stupid and, at worst, showed a willingness
to collude with Moscow to tilt the election. Michael Morell, a former acting
director of the C.I.A., told the Cipher Brief, a Web site that covers
national-security issues, that Trump, Jr.,’s e-mails are “huge” and indicate
that the President’s inner circle knew as early as last June that “the Russians
were working on behalf of Trump.” In the same article, James Clapper, the
former director of National Intelligence, said that the e-mails were probably
“only one anecdote in a much larger story,” adding, “I can’t believe that this
one exchange represents all there is, either involving the President’s son or
others associated with the campaign.” Intelligence officials speculated that
the tradecraft employed in setting up such a meeting was possibly a way to
gauge how receptive the Trump campaign was to even deeper forms of coöperation.
In any case, the proper thing to have done would have been to call the F.B.I.
Now the country is headed toward a “constitutional crisis,” Clapper said, and
the question has to be asked: “When will the Republicans collectively say
‘enough’?”
Good
question. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, business leaders
such as Stephen Schwarzman and Carl Icahn, and a raft of White House advisers,
including the bulk of the National Security Council, cannot fail to see the
chaos, the incompetence, and the potential illegality in their midst, and yet
they go on supporting, excusing, and deflecting attention from the President’s
behavior in order to protect their own ambitions and fortunes. They realize
that Trump’s base is still the core of the G.O.P. electorate, and they dare not
antagonize it. The Republicans, the self-proclaimed party of family values,
remain squarely behind a family and a Presidency whose most salient features
are amorality, greed, demagoguery, deception, vulgarity, race-baiting,
misogyny, and, potentially—only time and further investigation will tell—a
murky relationship with a hostile foreign government.
In
the near term, if any wrongdoing is found, the Trump family member who stands
to lose the most is the son-in-law and consigliere, Jared Kushner, who
accompanied Donald, Jr., to the meeting with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin. Kushner
seems to see himself and his wife, Ivanka, as lonely voices of probity and
moderation in an otherwise unhinged West Wing. Why they would believe this when
their conflicts of interest are on an epic scale is a mystery. But such is
their self-regard. It is said by those close to Kushner that, if he fears
anything, it is to repeat the experience of his father, Charles, who, in 2005,
pleaded guilty to charges of making illegal campaign contributions and hiring a
prostitute to entrap his brother-in-law, and spent fourteen months in an
Alabama penitentiary.
Meanwhile, as the
Trump family consumes the nation’s attention with its colossal self-absorption
and ethical delinquencies, the temperature keeps rising.
- This article
appears in other versions of the July 24, 2017, issue, with the headline
“Things Fall Apart.”
*David Remnick has
been editor of The New Yorker since 1998 and a staff writer since
1992. He is the author of “The
Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.” - Read more »
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário