Democracy dies in darkness but liberty lives in light
Author: The Paradise Progressive
David Silverberg is a veteran journalist who spent over 30 years in Washington, DC covering a variety of topics, including Congress and politics. He moved to Southwest Florida in 2013 and lives in Naples.
Rep. Byron Donalds introduces Alfie Oakes at a gathering at Food & Thought 2 last Wednesday.
April 26, 2024 by David Silverberg
Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III will be running again to keep his seat as a Collier County Republican state committeeman, he announced Wednesday, April 24.
Oakes, a local farmer, grocer and Trumpist activist, made the announcement at a gathering at his Food & Thought 2 restaurant. The Republican primary election is scheduled for August 20.
Oakes was endorsed by Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and said in his turn he supports Donalds as well for whatever position he seeks, mentioning the possibility of Donalds’ running for governor in 2026.
In his remarks he also mentioned that while “America First” Republicans had been successful in the past, their preferred candidate, Ted Blankenship, had been rebuffed for mayor in the City of Naples election on March 19, as a result of “country club Republicans.” He said he anticipated different results in Collier County in the upcoming elections.
Oakes endorsed Kristina Heuser for a committe position on the Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC) to replace the current member, JoAnn DeBartolo, a longtime conservative, pro-Trump activist.
Heuser is a local lawyer and the drafter of Collier County’s anti-federal nullification ordinance, which passed the Board of Commissioners last August. A previous ordinance she wrote was defeated in 2021.
Kristina Heuser.
Donalds, Oakes and Heuser all called for unity among Republicans, while acknowledging differences of opinion within the Party.
“Before the Democrats do anything to us, we have to make sure that we don’t do anything to ourselves,” said Donalds. He said that while Republicans had divisions it was only the result of “a passionate commitment” to keep Florida the best state in the country “but that is only going to happen if we unite as one party.”
Oakes said that he opposed DeBartolo for another term on the Committee but chose not to elaborate, saying “if you can’t say something nice about someone don’t say anything at all.”
In her address Heuser stated: “There is an evil, George Soros-funded movement in Florida,” she said of the initiative to amend the state Constitution to guarantee a right to abortion. Amendment 4 supporters “want to legalize abortion through birth, not through a law that can be undone but by putting it into the Florida state Constitution.” She urged listeners to vote against it in November.
She continued: “They are going to say this is to protect women’s health but no, this is to say that the legislature cannot restrict abortion at all.”
She said she would work “to make sure the Republican Party continues to stand for life.”
She also said that while working in New York she had met people who lost their jobs for refusing to take the COVID vaccine and “the government should never tell you [that] you have to inject toxic drugs into your body.”
She said she and the others gathered there were present “we’re here to protect Biblical values” and “We seek the truth through love, that is what the Bible tells us to do.”
Still, Collier County has ‘a superb system’ for elections
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall at the moment he discussed 9/11. (Image: CCBC)
April 24, 2024 by David Silverberg
During discussion of his election-disrupting resolution during the Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting yesterday, April 23, Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) said that the election of President Joe Biden in 2020 hit him harder than the terrorist-piloted planes that smashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
“I’ll never forget how I felt the night of the 2020 election,” said Hall. “It was worse than I felt on 9/11.”
He continued: “There was something just deeply wrong with that and I know several in here in the room was ecstatic about that. But there was nothing that was fair about that election, when the results didn’t even show up and had been manipulated.”
He then declined to continue on the subject or offer evidence. “You know, I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole but there’s a rabbit hole to go down,” he said.
Hall’s comparison of the 2020 election results to 9/11 brought a rare rebuke from fellow Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) when it was his turn to speak. LoCastro is a retired US Air Force colonel and Air Force Academy graduate.
“First I want to say something to you, Chairman Hall, and I mean this with no disrespect,” he said, somberly. “I was unhappy in 2020 but I got to tell you, as a veteran, I could never say it was worse than 9/11. I lost so many people on 9/11 and afterwards and so…. I understand how you package the meaning you were trying to say and so I realize you’re not being disrespectful, you’re a huge supporter of veterans but I just want to go on the record to all the veterans that are here: 9/11 was horrific, OK?
“Nobody died in 2020. I lost hundreds of friends, I held dead people in my arms, I put American flags over caskets, I put them on airplanes after 9/11 and after, so I don’t ask you to rescind those comments and I say this with all due respect so I’m not…I hope you’re hearing this in a positive [way].”
Referring to Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3), LoCastro continued: “So I think, as Commissioner Saunders said, sometimes words matter and we speak up here very quickly about domestic animal services and other things and Conservation Collier, but I just wanted to go on the record and say 9/11 was horrific and I don’t think there’s many things that I hope will [ever] top that.”
A number of public speakers at yesterday’s meeting, including Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier, pointed out that invalidating the 2022 election would have invalidated Hall’s own election, since that was when he won office.
But Hall was at pains to argue that his resolution did not target Collier County and he praised Blazier and the work of her office.
“One of the hardest things I’ve ever done is sit here for 45 minutes and hear this applied to things it doesn’t even apply to,” he said impatiently when the public comment period was over. “We are not talking about our local supervisor of elections. We’re not talking about Collier County, in no way. If I was ever illegally elected I would resign in three seconds.”
In Collier County, he said, “We have a superb system and I have utmost confidence that we were all elected fairly.”
The resolution was aimed at being part of a national movement to alter voting procedures, he said. “…I just want to make it very, very clear this resolution has nothing to do with our local supervisor of elections, our local integrity. It has to do with the people that’s—it’s a grassroots effort, it’s a movement to begin here and go with every county in Florida to send to our state legislators and our state Senate to let them know how important, fair, accurate and accountable elections are. That’s all it is.”
As he put it: “We want the fire to begin here.”
Commentary: finale
Given the public opposition and lack of support of the Board of Commissioners for the resolution that would have significantly altered voting procedures and made them more cumbersome, restrictive and possibly illegal, the United Sovereign Americans effort to light that fire certainly did not ignite yesterday in Collier County. Fla.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners during yesterday’s meeting. (Image: CCBC)
Commissioner Chris Hall at today’s Board of Commissioners meeting. (Image: CCBC)
April 23, 2024 by David Silverberg
Correction, April 26: Vincent Keeys did not serve on the Canvassing Board but observed its operations.
Without taking a vote, the Collier County Board of Commissioners today agreed not to advance a resolution calling for major changes to county elections, effectively killing the proposal.
The bill was drafted by an entity calling itself United Sovereign Americans, which is trying to alter elections across the United States. An activist named Marly Hornik is the only confirmed member of what purports to be a national organization.
During public comments at the meeting numerous Collier County residents rose to praise the work done by Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier and denounce the conspiracy theories contained in the resolution.
Diane Preston Moore, president of the Collier County League of Women Voters, said the League officially opposed the resolution, calling its title “misleading.” As for its allegations, she said, “saying something is so doesn’t make it so.”
Vincent Keeys, president of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who had observed the Canvassing Board overseeing local elections stated that while Hall had every right to bring the resolution forward, “Collier County has no voting irregularities” and called the resolution “ridiculous, very costly and absolutely unnecessary.”
Blazier testified remotely, reiterating arguments she made in an April 18 letter to Hall. She called the resolution “deeply flawed and highly unnecessary” and urged commissioners to “reject this resolution.”
Commission discussion
Following the public comment portion of the meeting, Hall made the point that the resolution was not aimed at Collier County but was intended to be part of a national effort to alter elections in general. “We want the fire to begin here,” he said and if the resolution passed it would be carried to the rest of Florida’s 67 counties.
He also denied that the resolution’s establishing clauses alleging 2022 Florida voting irregularities were directed at Collier County or its conduct of elections. “This is not about us here in Collier County,” he said.
None of the other commissioners were impressed with the resolution.
“This resolution is not ready for prime time,” said Commissioner William McDaniel (R-District 5). “It stipulates a lot of things that are not consequential to Collier County.” He also pointed out that “There is not a soul in this room who does not want election integrity.”
Commissioner Rick LoCastro (R-District 1) was similarly leery, saying that it required a lot more discussion before moving forward. “I would not be comfortable voting on this now,” he said.
Commissioner Burt Saunders (R-District 3) said that while the resolution was “well-intentioned” he was prepared to vote against it if it was presented for formal approval. “I don’t think we should continue it. It is flawed to the point where we should start over. Let’s start over again with something that will be meaningful.”
Commissioner Dan Kowal (R-District 4) said: “I don’t want to put my name to something that’s a cookie-cutter resolution,” referring to its outside origins.
While McDaniel initially wanted to make the resolution a continuing matter to be taken up again at a later date, Saunders argued that it should advance no further.
Given the general reluctance to put the matter to a vote to formally defeat it, McDaniel, LoCastro, Kowal and ultimately Hall all agreed with Saunders that the best course was simply not to advance it in any way.
The resolution was thus killed without a vote. However all the commissioners stated they were open to hearing suggestions to improve elections in Collier County and welcomed input from residents.
Collier County Commissioner Chris Hall, who is planning to introduce a resolution to alter county elections on Tuesday. (Image: CCBC)
April 21, 2024 by David Silverberg
A resolution demanding election changes in Collier County that is expected to be introduced to the Board of Commissioners this coming Tuesday, April 23, is actually a standard, cookie-cutter template drafted by an organization whose executive director has in the past been warned against voter intimidation, election interference and false representation.
Commissioner Chris Hall (R-District 2) is expected to introduce a “Resolution for a Legally Valid 2024 General Election” at the Tuesday meeting. Discussion of the resolution is on the Board’s agenda.
The resolution was not locally drafted and the 11 demands it makes are not solutions tailored to Collier County needs. They are part of a national effort to profoundly change US elections by United Sovereign Americans, a national non-profit 501c3 organization that purports to promote election integrity.
The 11 demands in the resolution include stringent identity requirements, voting audits, multiple witnesses for operations and requirements for new elections if conditions are not met. (The full resolution text and its supporting documentation can be accessed and downloaded at the conclusion of this article.)
The resolution would disrupt upcoming elections in Collier County, county Supervisor of Elections, Melissa Blazier told Hall in an April 18 message. She called it “deeply flawed and highly unnecessary.” (The full text of her message is below.)
The resolution is in two parts. The first part makes unsupported allegations of election fraud in the 2022 Florida election. These allegations were conveyed to Hall by the Election Integrity Committee of the Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC).
Blazier stated these allegations were “riddled with erroneous conclusions and lack any manner of legally relevant evidence.”
The second part of the resolution is just a copy of the United Sovereign Americans’ standard draft resolution produced and distributed by the organization.
Blazier wrote: “The majority of requests this resolution calls for are either already incorporated into existing law, are in direct violation of existing law or would require technology that is not yet available or authorized for use in the State of Florida.”
She noted that her office was not obligated to abide by the resolution but rather by the laws of the state and the US Constitution. Resolutions are non-binding statements of opinion by legislative bodies.
“To use the words of Governor DeSantis, Florida is the GOLD STANDARD for election administration and Collier County is a leader in the state for conducting elections,” she wrote. “By considering or even passing this resolution, the public’s confidence in the elections that are conducted by the hundreds of Collier County citizen election workers who work hard to ensure fair, accurate and legal elections is further eroded.”
Past allegations
Since the election of 2020, unsupported allegations of election fraud and calls to audit or overturn certified elections are nothing new in Collier County.
While United Sovereign Americans’ website claims chapters in 24 states and thousands of volunteers, it does not provide a single name, identify a director, or provide a headquarters location.
In an undated podcast, Hornik told interviewer Jeff Dornik that United Sovereign Americans was “working in state after state to prove that non-compliant and inaccurate elections were certified as compliant and accurate” and that “the elections were a sham, that the certifications were an act of perjury.”
In 2023, New York State Attorney Letitia James sent a cease and desist letter to Hornik stating “that reports alleging that volunteers from the NY Citizens Audit Civic Fund have confronted voters across the state at their homes, falsely claimed to be Board of Elections officials, and falsely accused voters of committing felony voter fraud.”
The letter demanded: “You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated voter deception and intimidation efforts, including instructing or otherwise causing volunteers to falsely represent themselves as government officials or falsely accuse voters of voter fraud. Voter deception and intimidation have no place in New York, and the [Office of Attorney General] will use every tool at its disposal to protect New York voters.”
(The full text of the letter can be accessed and downloaded below.)
United Sovereign Americans is calling for election challenges across the United States. As part of that effort it provides the 11-point draft resolution for local political bodies to use as a model for election demands. This is the same draft being used by Hall for his resolution in Collier County.
As a basis for its allegations of Florida voting irregularities in 2022, Hall’s resolution cites the information provided by the CCREC.
A key member of the CCREC is Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, a local farmer and grocer, who is also an elected Party state committeeman.
Oakes has been an intense adherent of President Donald Trump’s untrue allegations of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
In 2021 he called for an audit of the results of the 2020 election results in Florida, despite their being uncontested by any party and the fact that they led to all Republican victories. On the Alex Jones InfoWars show, he offered a $100,000 political contribution to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) if the governor would sit down for two hours to listen to Oakes’ allegations of election fraud in person. This prompted fellow Trump activist Christy McLaughlin to warn that such a direct quid pro quo contribution would constitute a bribe, an argument Oakes rejected. Ultimately, DeSantis never took up the offer and the election results were unchallenged.
The allegations of voter fraud passed on by the CCREC prompted Blazier to ask why, if they were aware of election irregularities, they weren’t reported to the proper authorities at the time.
Blazier’s message to Hall is provided in full below:
Commissioner Hall,
As Collier County Supervisor of Elections, with 18+ years of election administration experience, I find the attached proposed resolution to be deeply flawed and highly unnecessary. The statements purporting to support the 11 requests are riddled with erroneousness conclusions and lack any manner of legally relevant evidence. I am concerned that this matter is being presented to the board without being thoroughly vetted to the legitimacy of its claims. One of the key questions is, if the outside organization that provided this information to the Collier County Republican Executive Committee had proof or evidence that the State of Florida’s election had violated both federal and state laws, why would they not present that evidence through the proper legal channels versus through a nonbinding resolution at the local level? This resolution states that the 2022 General Election, in the State of Florida, was fraught with massive inaccuracies that violate both Federal and State laws. This is the same election, may I remind you, that 44 races and contests were decided in Collier County – including County Commission District 2.
The majority of requests this resolution calls for are either already incorporated into existing law, are in direct violation of existing law or would require technology that is not yet available or authorized for use in the State of Florida. My comments on each of the 11 requests is also attached. As election officials in Florida, my staff and I take an oath of office to uphold both the US and Florida constitutions and to implement Florida’s election laws. Should this resolution pass, we are under no obligation to follow it unless otherwise required by state and federal law.
To use the words of Governor DeSantis, Florida is the GOLD STANDARD for election administration and Collier County is a leader in the state for conducting elections. By considering or even passing this resolution, the public’s confidence in the elections that are conducted by the hundreds of Collier County citizen election workers who work hard to ensure fair, accurate and legal elections is further eroded. The statements in this resolution only fuel the harassment of the many individuals who come together to ensure the integrity of the electoral process in our community.
I truly hope that you give consideration to my thoughts and concerns and do not pass this egregious resolution.
Sincerely,
Melissa R. Blazier
Since Hall is expected to introduce his resolution at the Collier County Board of Commissioners meeting this coming Tuesday, April 23, Collier County residents can express an opinion on this matter by writing or calling their commissioners. The resolution is listed as agenda item 10A and residents who sign up in person the day of the meeting can speak before the Board for 3 minutes.
Passage yesterday of a $95 billion aid package to Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific in the US House of Representatives revealed fundamental differences among Southwest Florida’s representatives regarding America’s role in the world.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.), chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, had a key role in drafting the legislation and voted for it. He supports active American involvement in world affairs and events.
Reps. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) voted against it, advocating an insular, isolationist approach that would favor Russia’s conquest of Ukraine.
The bill passed in an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 316 to 94.
One hundred and sixty five Democrats and 151 Republicans voted to approve the measure, while 55 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted against it. Twenty-one members did not vote.
The package consisted of four bills: the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (House Resolution (HR) 8034; the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (HR 8035); the Indo-Pacific Security Supplemental Act (HR 8036); and the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act (HR 8038). The last was a miscellany of measures including sanctions against Russia and Iran, international crime prevention measures and anti-fentanyl and Tik-Tok prohibitions.
These bills will now be merged with a bill already passed in the Senate, and a vote on the whole is expected today, Saturday, April 20.
Diaz-Balart strongly promoted the legislation prior to the vote.
“As Chairman of the subcommittee that provides funds for national security and foreign assistance priorities, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of these important pieces of legislation,” he stated in a press release on April 17. “The strategic alliance between our most dangerous adversaries, such as communist China, Russia, and the terrorist State of Iran, poses a direct threat to our national security. This bill fully funds our security commitments to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, which are confronting existential challenges as they face threats from dangerous, anti-American regimes. Passage of this critical national security legislation will support US interests in the Middle East, Europe, and the Indo-Pacific, and make us safer here at home by supporting our military.”
He continued: “There is nothing our adversaries would love more than for the United States to fail to stand with our friends in their time of greatest need. We have no time to spare. Passage of this aid package is critical.”
In contrast, immediately after voting against the bill, Donalds posted on X: “Government must put the AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST.”
Steube opposed the bill on both partisan and substantive grounds.
“Tells you a lot about our current Republican ‘leadership’ when there are more Democrats than Republicans voting for a so-called ‘Republican’ rule…” he posted on X when the House debated the rules for considering the measure.
Steube made his objections to security assistance in general known in March during earlier consideration of Ukraine and Israel aid. On March 22 he posted on X: “101 Republicans just voted for an out-of-control spending bill that includes more money for Ukraine and $500 million for Jordan’s border security…Meanwhile, as we sit here in Washington DC, our country is being invaded. What about America’s border security? This bill is AMERICA LAST.”
Donalds’ and Steube’s opposition is in keeping with that of the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party, which is now considering attempting the ouster of House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-4-La.) for working with Democrats to pass the package.
The first poster issued for the movie Civil War. (Art: A24)
April 19, 2024 by David Silverberg
Back on Dec. 13, the independent, boutique movie studio A24 released a horrific-looking trailer for a movie called Civil War.
Its premise was that civil war breaks out in the United States between a president and his forces and an insurrectionist opposition. It was impossible to tell from the trailer whether the person portrayed as the president in the movie was supposed to be Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whether the insurrectionists were fighting to Make America Great Again (MAGA) or to preserve democracy.
The movie was released last weekend, on April 12, without the fanfare and the major marketing push that prospective blockbusters command. Nonetheless it earned $25.7 million at the box office on its opening weekend, a record for A24.
It is currently playing in Southwest Florida theaters.
Back in January, after watching the trailer, this author raised the question whether this movie would encourage would-be insurrectionists to take up arms against the government of the United States.
As stated at the time: “Whether pro or anti insurrection—or even anti-American—the most dangerous thing about this movie is that it will encourage those thinking of civil war and political violence to actually take up arms and make this fiction real. People living in deep red, heavily MAGA, gun-saturated places—like Southwest Florida—where there has already been talk of armed revolution, know that the line between fantasy and reality in this matter is already very thin.”
Having seen it, this author can address the question: is this movie likely to incite political violence and armed insurrection?
Rather than the usual domain for a movie review—the artistic, aesthetic and performance aspects—this review will try to answer that question.
But to understand the answer, one needs to know the setting, the characters, and the plot.
Background
Anyone thinking of seeing this movie should know at the outset that in its quest for authenticity it is extremely violent, bloodily graphic, literally gory, incredibly loud and full of profanity. There are a lot of unceremonious executions. It is rated R.
The civil war is already under way as the movie opens. The exact details of the conflict are only sketched out. The president, a man given to hyperbole and exaggeration who wears red ties, is in his (implied) illegitimate third term and has no intention of leaving the office.
“Western forces” consisting of Californian and Texan troops are at war with the federal government as is a “Florida alliance,” which has tried to make headway toward Washington, DC. Both have been beaten back, according to the president, who characterizes them as “secessionist.”
“Some are already calling it the greatest victory in the history of mankind,” he says.
In New York City, an experienced war photographer named Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst, is photographing street protests that end in a bloody explosion, part of the rising tide of violence. Her driver and assistant is Joel, played by Brazilian-born actor, Wagner Moura.
Together they plan to travel to Washington, DC to cover the culmination of the rebellion. But as they talk of going, Sammy, played by Stephen McKinley Henderson, an old, lame New York Times reporter they know, cadges a ride. Also tagging along is Jessie, played by Cailee Spaeny, an aspiring war photographer who idolizes Lee (and who, in the biggest unreality of the entire movie, insists on shooting black and white film!).
So now the stereotypical quartet is complete: a hard-bitten, disillusioned veteran photog who has seen it all; a vaguely Latino sidekick; an ingénue and apprentice; and an old, wise, disabled black character providing special insights, a cliché known as the “magical Negro,” a term invented by director Spike Lee.
The movie could have been titled Four Tropes in a Truck.
No spoiler here: the psychological arc of the story is the maturation and brutal, real-world education of Jessie.
While in real life the road from New York to Washington, DC is pretty straightforward (Interstate 95, anyone?) the situation is such that the characters have to follow a roundabout route through the backroads of Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
This odyssey leads to a series of dystopian episodes that illustrate the disruption, inhumanity and confusion of civil war. (And also allow for filming tight, intimate scenes that don’t cost too much to set up.)
The film culminates in an elaborate, destructive assault on Washington and the White House, whose compound has been surrounded by a high, heavily fortified concrete wall, presumably built at the direction of this president.
Portraying civil war
The term “civil war” has been bandied about a great deal lately, mostly by MAGAs loyal to former President Donald Trump, who has also warned of a “bloodbath” if he’s not returned to office this November.
Naples farmer and grocer Alfie Oakes takes aim in an Aug. 8, 2021 Facebook post stating, “I pray we have election integrity in 2022…. if we don’t we must prepare for the worst! Our second amendment right is specifically to revolt against a a tyrannical government! Prepare for the worst and pray for the best.” (Photo: Facebook)
The people discussing “civil war” as a real possibility don’t appear to have a clue what real “civil war” means. They don’t appear to understand just what a tragedy, a horror, and an apocalypse a civil war constitutes. When Trump discusses a “bloodbath” and his enablers, like Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), defend it, they’re not showing any real comprehension of what happens when a society and nation is viciously ripped apart; when neighbors, family, friends turn on each other—and lose their nearest and dearest at each other’s hands.
To some small degree the movie Civil War conveys this kind of holocaust.
There is one scene where the journalists are stopped by an armed man of indeterminate side. When they say they are Americans like him, he asks: “What kind of Americans?”
“What kind of Americans?” (Image: A24)
Their lives depend on their answers, but there’s no telling what his standards are or what kind of Americans he’s seeking.
This in some small way conveys the horror and mortal uncertainty of a civil war.
To me one of the most tragic and awful depictions in the movie is a battle between uniformed soldiers and US Secret Service agents in the halls of the White House.
To know US Secret Service agents is to know some of the most patriotic, loyal, dedicated, highly-trained servants of this country, many with military backgrounds, people whose lives are on the line daily in the performance of their duties. To see them pitted—even fictionally—against fellow American soldiers really brings home the tragedy and horror of what a “civil war” truly means.
In a sense Civil War serves a constructive role in bringing all this horror this home. But the large number of appalling incidents and images also desensitizes the viewer to the brutality of what’s happening so that by the end, these occurrences are just a matter of course, exactly as Jessie learns to experience them.
This desensitization occurred during America’s real Civil War too. At the very outset northerners were appalled in 1861 by the killing of a single Union officer, Col. Elmer Ellsworth, when he was shot taking down a Confederate flag in Alexandria, Va. He was the first Union soldier to die and his death made headlines. By the end of the conflict in 1865, over 600,000 Americans were dead, their passing just statistics in the newspapers of the time.
Americans received a foretaste of real civil war on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump pitted thousands of his followers against the US Congress and the Capitol Police. American Trumpers beat and battered American police officers doing their duty protecting the American Capitol. Americans attempted to lynch an American Vice President. It is remarkable that only one rioter was shot and that plans to use lethal force against members of Congress did not succeed. It could have been a real bloodbath.
A non-fiction documentary of Jan. 6 could serve as a depiction of a second American civil war instead of the movie’s fictional portrayal.
(And on a personal note: As a journalist I had the privilege during my career of being granted entry to the White House and always approached that mansion with a sense of respect and even awe. It was wrenching to watch even a replica of hallways I had known wrecked in the movie, just as much as it was devastating to watch Capitol corridors I had walked defiled and vandalized on Jan. 6. As though to make things worse, the movie shows the Lincoln Memorial attacked, the same building before whose steps I took my wedding vows on a boat on the Potomac. Every one of these sacred, meaningful sites has now been devastated in fact or in fiction. Next, no doubt, will come the turn of the Supreme Court—and if the justices rule that the Jan. 6 rioters go free from charges of obstructing government, then they deserve what they get when their chambers are invaded and vandalized in their turn.)
The Lincoln Memorial attacked in the movie. (Image: A24)
Does it incite?
Will this movie inspire someone to take up arms and violently try to overthrow the Constitution and the government of the United States?
Probably not—at least from a standing start. However, a person already inclined to use violence might find additional motivation from this movie.
The movie is likely to inspire at least one imitative mass shooting or attack on a soft target like a peaceful gathering or a theater. If that happens, investigators should ask if the perpetrators saw the film and were incited by it.
Almost as damaging as possible incitement is the fact that movie posits lethal violence as a political solution. That is unacceptable in a civil society governed by law. In a society ripped apart by civil war violence is the last solution left but—mercifully—America is not there now, at least to the point of widespread disorder.
That should never be allowed to happen in America. It’s one more reason that the concept of civil war is so abhorrent on so many levels, even in fictional depictions.
Anti-Trump or anti-Union?
It’s clear that the President, played by Nick Offerman, is a portrayal of Donald Trump. MAGAs, however, may see the situation through the lens of President Joe Biden as the overstepping tyrant in the movie, justifying armed resistance.
However, the real political threat portrayed in the movie is the notion of secession from the United States by violent means. After all, the overall political situation in the movie is one of states revolting against a hijacked federal government—although the notion of Florida rising up against Trump or a California-Texas alliance is pretty far-fetched at the moment.
Still, secession is rearing its head again and expressing itself in anti-federal actions, particularly in Florida and Texas.
Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, stated that the movie was “not as implausible as some people would have you believe” and was “pouring gasoline on the fire” of a Texas secessionist movement that has been called “Texit.”
The resistance of the governors of Florida and Texas to federal authority has been called “soft secession” and it is likely to go further. They continue defying federal authority, including that of the Supreme Court.
So the movie revives the idea of a state-based secession movement, an argument that was seemingly settled in 1865.
The sign of secession in the heart of one nation, indivisible: Rioter Kevin Seefried of Delaware carries the Confederate flag into the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In February 2023 Seefried was sentenced to three years in prison for obstruction of an official proceeding and for using that flag to attack Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who heroically led rioters away from the Senate chamber. (Photo: AFP/Saul Loeb)
Takeaways
To answer the first question any movie review should answer: Should you go see the movie?
If you enjoy extreme violence, gore and chaos, yes. But if you don’t, your life won’t be any worse for skipping it. If you do see it, it’s unlikely to profoundly change your outlook or worldview.
But in a larger sense, and looking more broadly, one hopes this film might serve to dampen down the threats of armed insurrection, violence, bloodbaths and secession.
One can understand what inspired its creation and the desire to produce it. Its producers have every right to present it.
Fortunately, it is not an unmistakable incitement to civil disorder and insurrection. It doesn’t call on viewers to take up arms and go to war.
But neither is it a clear deterrent.
It shows the horrors of civil war and what that would entail at ground level. But it doesn’t convey the full, deep meaning of what civil war would do to America and the full magnitude of the disaster that civil war imposes on any society.
Ultimately, a civil war in America like that portrayed would be a historic tragedy of staggering proportions at every level—globally, nationally and individually.
If the movie inspires anything constructive it should inspire a determination never to have events like those portrayed occur. One would hope it would inspire the people of the United States to reject divisiveness, insurrection, criminality and treason and, out of diversity, forge unity—“E Pluribus Unum,” as America’s first motto stated. It should inspire allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law and the realization that a common future trumps all allegiance or obedience to any single, violence-spewing, delusional individual.
If not, the movie Civil War might better be titled Putin’s Dream.
A demonstration in favor of women’s reproductive rights at the Collier County, Fla., Courthouse on Oct. 2, 2021. (Photo: Author)
April 10, 2024 by David Silverberg
Imagine, if you will, that it is a few minutes to midnight on Tuesday, April 30, 2024.
In Florida’s towns and cities crowds gather in the darkness on courthouse steps and town squares to mark the imminent implementation of the “Heartbeat Protection Act,” the state’s six-week abortion ban.
At each gathering, speakers address the crowds, many of the women in Handmaid costumes. As the clock nears midnight, the speaker raises a copy of the pamphlet containing the Roe versus Wade decision.
Then, at midnight, the speaker sparks a flame and sets the Supreme Court decision alight, marking the end of a woman’s right to choose in Florida.
A burning copy of the Roe v. Wade decision. (Photo illustration: Slate)
The pamphlet burns quickly. An assistant strikes a bell that mournfully tolls 12 times. The fire dies into darkness. The bell’s sound fades into a solemn moment of silence. It is one minute past midnight, May 1, 2024.
Then spotlights come up and focus on the unscrolling of large banner that has on it the words of Amendment 4:
“No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”
The crowd cheers and waves small flags bearing the words of the amendment that were earlier distributed. They chant: “My body, my choice, my vote, my voice.” And then they march.
The media visuals are spectacular and spread across the state, the nation and the world.
And the battle to pass Amendment 4 is formally joined.
Or perhaps that’s too dramatic and impractical. Maybe anti-choice towns and cities in Florida won’t provide a permit for a midnight gathering or it’s too much to organize on short notice.
Maybe a less complex form of observance is also an option.
Perhaps at midnight on April 30-May 1 supporters of Amendment 4 can open their windows or go outside on their porches, and decks and lanais and simply bang a pot or pan for five minutes to register their protest and alert the world that they are mobilized and ready to work to change Florida’s Constitution.
It’s a common form of protest in countries where people fear retaliation and punishment for their views. There’s even a name for it: “cacerolazo,” a Spanish word derived from “stew pot” (similar to the word “casserole”) and it’s a time honored type of dissent. In recent years it was mostly used in South America to demonstrate against everything from government repression to economic austerity.
Imagine a cacophony of banging pots rising from Florida’s midnight darkness; a protest—and a warning.
Whatever form it takes, the coming into force of Florida’s abortion ban should not go unmarked.
But this year the abortion fight has an interesting wrinkle and it’s one that pro-choice activists should use to the max.
A wrinkle of timing
When the Florida Supreme Court issued its abortion rulings on April 1 it set up an interesting political dynamic.
In one ruling it declared that the six-week abortion ban could go into effect in 30 days. That is scheduled to occur at midnight, May 1.
In another ruling it declared that Amendment 4 legalizing abortion could go on the ballot and be decided on Election Day, Nov. 5.
It is 188 days (6 months and 4 days) between those dates.
During that time Florida women will be stripped of a right to choose that they enjoyed for the previous 50 years under Roe v. Wade. They will feel what it is like to lose a fundamental right, to have a heavy hand descend on their lives and have no recourse or appeal. The media will carry stories like those in the past from Ohio and Indiana or Texas about Florida women who suffer because Florida has outlawed safe, legal abortion.
But that period also provides a powerful incentive for pro-choice advocates to make their case for passing Amendment 4 with the 60 percent majority they need to add it to the Florida Constitution.
It should not be allowed to slip away.
Reactions and implications
There has now been sufficient time to react to the Florida Supreme Court’s rulings and across the board, political analysts and pundits view it as a disaster for Florida Republicans both in the state and quite possibly nationally. A tsunami of commentary is already breaking and will gather force and volume as Election Day draws nearer. (Of note: Early voting begins Oct. 26.)
Still, some voices stand out.
President Joe Biden’s campaign is arguing that the abortion decisions make Florida winnable for Democrats.
“We definitely see Florida in play, and unlike Donald Trump, we have multiple pathways to 270 [Electoral College votes] that we’ve been able to keep open,” Julie Chávez Rodríguez, the campaign manager for the Biden-Harris reelection team, told reporters after the Supreme Court rulings.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the Florida Democratic candidate for Senate, called the rulings “a game-changer.”
“I think that millions of Floridians regardless of party, we know that this is not a partisan issue, are going to come out to the ballot box and make sure they protect their right to choose and their freedom,” she stated. She has used the rulings to hammer her opponent, Sen. Rick Scott, who supports a national abortion ban.
Florida pundit and Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson, who had a long career as a down and dirty Republican political operative, called the rulings “consequential” in a post titled, “Welcome To Ground Zero: Florida Puts Abortion On The Ballot.”
The amendments, he wrote, “will reshape the race in Florida — particularly down-ballot,” overturning Republican calculations. “This was the last thing they wanted,” he noted.
“Pissed-off women are dangerous women, and the six-week bans on abortion are having a massive political ripple effect in the country,” he wrote. “The Florida Democrats should focus on tightening the GOP’s current 800,000 registration advantage and ramping turnout with women voters.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who pushed for the six-week ban when he was running for president and signed it into law, struck back—feebly.
At a press conference in Davie, Fla., on April 4, DeSantis said that Florida voters would reject Amendment 4 and an amendment to legalize recreational marijuana as too radical and “very, very extreme.”
He also expressed a belief that many Florida voters are too ignorant to understand or vote for the amendments.
“I think Florida voters over the past four or five cycles have developed a skepticism on these amendments generally because they’re always written in ways that are confusing,” he said. “You don’t necessarily know what the intent’s going to be. So I think there’s a certain segment of voters, they default. Just vote ‘no’ on these things. Because they know that these things cost tens of millions of dollars to get on.”
Alleged vagueness in the wording was also the argument used by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and her allies when they argued against including Amendment 4 on the ballot before the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court rejected their arguments. “Here, there is no lack of candor or accuracy,” stated the Court’s opinion. “…the ballot language plainly informs voters that the material legal effects of the proposed amendment will be that the government will be unable to enact laws that ‘prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict’ previability abortions or abortions necessary to protect the mother’s health. It is undeniable that those are the main and material legal effects of the proposed amendment.”
(The entire ruling is available for download at the end of this article.)
The rulings also had the effect of forcing Donald Trump, Florida resident and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, to issue a statement to clarify his position on abortion, which he did in a video on April 8. In it he took credit for appointing the US Supreme Court judges who overthrew Roe v. Wade, said that abortion should be left to the states and then declined to either endorse a national ban, as anti-choice activists had hoped, or set a time limit when abortions should be legal.
One view of Trump’s abortion position. (Illustration: M. Wuerker/Politico)
His operative paragraph was: “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint. The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be.”
Another cartoonist’s view of Trump’s abortion statement. (Illustration: Andy Marlette)
It was a statement that attempted to have it all ways and it satisfied no one. Today, Wednesday, April 10, while questioned on a tarmac in Atlanta, Ga., Trump said he would not sign a national abortion ban if elected president.
Analysis: A rare moment in time
The timing of both the ban and the amendment present Floridians with an extremely rare political opportunity. Like a slingshot propelling a stone, the ban will give force, momentum and impact to the amendment effort. With the experience of repression, people will know and understand what they’re trying to achieve by passing the amendment.
The momentum is not all on one side, of course. Opponents will know that they have to preserve a ban that’s already in place. But at the moment, there is little evidence of the enthusiasm and determination to match the pro-choice side. However, opponents can be expected to mobilize so the conflict will be intense.
Another positive indicator for amendment advocates is the success of pro-choice measures in previous elections, even in very conservative states.
Wilson noted this in his analysis.
“The Democrats should take lessons from the abortion ballot questions in Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio,” he wrote, referring to recent victories for abortion rights.
“This isn’t simply about abortion qua abortion.
“It’s about the heavy hand of government overreach. It’s about Ron DeSantis deciding when you should know if you’re pregnant. It’s about monitoring women. It’s about turning doctors into criminals.
“The winning formula is out there on this issue. Democrats would be wise to use it. The ads, messages, and strategies in successful models of this issue are more libertarian than you might expect…and draw a percentage of women Republicans and conservative-leaning independents across the line.”
In all, Florida—and other states, like Arizona—are poised for an epic battle over women’s abortion rights, one that will ripple down the ballot and shape the nation.
It’s a rare moment in history, as rare as a solar eclipse.
But unlike an eclipse, its outcome is in the hands of the people on the ground. And in this case, those people can ensure that the sun comes out to once again shine on the Sunshine State.
The solar eclipse of April 8, 2024. (Image: NASA)
Click on the button to download a copy of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling onAmendment 4.
The 53-year old Democratic candidate for the US Senate seat now held by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), 71, had a compelling case to make when she announced her candidacy last August. A former representative from the Miami area, she was a credible candidate but faced a long, difficult path ahead.
However, when the Florida state Supreme Court issued its decisions on April 1 to both permit a six-week abortion ban to go into effect on May 1 and at the same time allow a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women’s right to choose to appear on the ballot in November it was, as Mucarsel-Powell put it, “a game changer.”
With the abortion issue front and center, Florida is now in play, in the view of President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
But that doesn’t surprise Mucarsel-Powell at all.
In her campaign travels she says she discovered a secret.
“I’ve learned that Florida is not a red state,” she said. “It remains a purple state, a diverse state, an independent state, a state where there are more things that bring us together than not.”
And by bringing people together she just may become Florida’s next senator.
An immigrant success story
In late March, Mucarsel-Powell (or DMP, as her staff refers to her) sat down with The Paradise Progressive for an extensive interview. It took place at Acopio Coffee, a newly-opened shop in Naples specializing in Columbian coffee.
Mucarsel-Powell was relaxed and right at home there, switching easily between English and Spanish as she spoke to the Columbian owners. A pleasant, accomplished and articulate woman, she grows intense and emphatic when discussing issues close to her heart—and there are many.
Debbie (her birth name) was born in Guayaquil, Ecuador, and immigrated to the United States at the age of 14 with her mother and three older sisters. At first they lived in a one-room apartment. She attended Pomona Catholic High School in Pomona, Calif., where she graduated in 1988 and then earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Pitzer College in 1992 and a Master of Arts in international political economy from Claremont Graduate University, both in Claremont, California, in 1996.
She started working in a doughnut shop to help support the family when she arrived in the United States. She continued working throughout her education.
She pursued an academic career, rising to associate dean of Florida International University (FIU), a Miami-based school founded in 1965 that serves a heavily immigrant and professional student body. From 2003 to 2007 she served as its director of development and beginning in 2007 as vice president for advancement at its college of medicine.
She married lawyer Robert Powell and had three children; Willow, Jude and Siena.
She was also very active in numerous non-profit institutions and causes. Among them, she volunteered in the presidential campaigns of John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008.
Political awakening
It was an encounter with pure, petty partisan politics that propelled her into electoral politics, she recalled.
Part of her job at FIU was raising funds for scholarships and healthcare programs. In 2016 the university had a program to send doctors and health providers into underserved communities to provide care.
But funding for the program was blocked both in Tallahassee and Washington, DC for reasons that had nothing to do with the program or its goals—or the people it helped.
“It just made no sense,” she recalled. “I was so upset. You follow certain policies but when you start understanding the situation and who is blocking it and why, that’s what prompted me to get involved. They were showing me all these reasons [for the obstruction] and I was like, ‘wait!’”
To make a difference, that year she ran against Republican Anitere Flores for a Florida Senate seat and lost.
However, in 2018 she ran against Rep. Carlos Curbelo in what was then the 26th Congressional District covering Homestead and the Florida Keys (which has since been redrawn to include much of eastern Collier County). She defeated him and served a term in Congress, during which she wrote a bill to expand Medicare Advantage coverage, worked to support families and small businesses and secured $200 million for Everglades restoration. She also voted to impeach President Donald Trump in his first trial in 2019.
In 2020 she faced Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Giménez and lost in a close election, 51 percent to 48 percent.
During her time in Congress, she said, “the most frustrating thing was always trying to make things better for the people living here.” Most of the reason for the difficulty in doing that is “that you have extremists like Rick Scott who are blocking any sort of progress and making it much harder for people to get ahead.”
As the 2024 election approached, Mucarsel-Powell saw an opportunity to address that problem again. As senator, Scott not only stood in the way of progress for working people and families, he had also failed on a variety of political fronts and pursued extreme policies.
“So I was in Congress and while I was writing a bill that would expand Medicare coverage, Rick Scott was writing a plan to sunset Medicare, Social Security, and raise taxes on middle class families,” she recalled.
But the problem with Scott was not just in the past. “He supports repealing the Affordable Care Act. Living in a state like Florida you understand how critical our environment is, but Rick Scott has denied that climate change exists. When he was governor, he voted against any sort of green energy here in our state. I’ve done work with fishermen in the Florida Keys who understand that if we don’t have a healthy environment, it’s not just about clean water in our own lives but it’s also about our economy.”
The situation was enough to make her get back in electoral politics and run for Scott’s Senate seat.
Given the Scott record, “I think people across the state understand” why she’s running, she said. “I’ve been having those conversations. I have them every day.”
Protecting seniors
Mucarsel-Powell’s positions on most issues are largely centrist and oriented toward working families and everyday Floridians: bringing down the cost of living and insurance; reducing healthcare and medication costs; keeping people safe and protecting water purity and the environment.
But some issues stand out, and in these Mucarsel-Powell draws a sharp contrast between herself and Scott.
Extremely relevant to Southwest Florida with its large senior population is her absolute commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare, programs that Scott has specifically targeted for elimination.
Mucarsel-Powell’s mother, Imelda, lives with her in Miami and the candidate knows how critical Medicare is for her mother’s health and Social Security for her livelihood.
“And it’s not just about my mother,” she points out. “We have the largest population of seniors who rely on these benefits to make sure they have access to healthcare. These are benefits that they they’ve paid into their entire lives.”
Knowing gun violence
Another issue that has a personal connection to Mucarsel-Powell is gun violence.
In 1995 her father, Guido, was shot and killed on the steps of the family home in Ecuador. To this day the circumstances are murky. It may have been a case of random violence. There has never been an arrest or prosecution.
“I was in the States. It was violence,” she recalled, referring to the situation in Ecuador. “It was someone on a motorcycle. I don’t have a lot of information. They were killing people for a lot of different reasons. It was devastating.”
She was 24 years old at the time.
Having experienced this kind of loss, Mucarsel-Powell is now a forceful advocate of background checks and closing gun purchasing loopholes—and she sees an international dimension to the problem.
“The reality is that if you have a violent criminal background you should not be able to purchase a weapon,” she said emphatically. “The universal background check is the simplest, most common-sense piece of legislation that we passed when I was in Congress. We should pass it again. I want to lead on that and there are a couple of senators who want to work on that and I think the majority of people agree, not just here in Florida but across the country.”
She especially dismisses the assertion that background checks are made at gun shows, an argument of pro-gun activists.
“I know for a fact that people can go into a gun show and walk out with a firearm. And then they trade them and sell them in the parking lot, by the way. And then what happens? Then we have gangs, drug-trafficking gangs that come to Florida because we have such relaxed gun laws. They purchase these weapons, get these weapons and then they take them to Haiti, they take them to Venezuela, they take them to Mexico. So if we want to talk about crime, let’s lead with that. Why are we allowing criminals to get weapons so easily in this country?”
This ties in with the need reform the immigration system and secure the border, an issue Republicans are using to hammer Democrats.
“Of course we have to secure our border,” she says. “That’s common sense. I voted for border security when I was in Congress but it’s going to get worse if we don’t do something to support the fight for democracy in these countries.”
Mucarsel-Powell was an advisor for the 2022 Summit of the Americas, a periodic gathering of North and South American leaders to discuss common concerns.
“We need to provide the support that we can so that we somehow make Latin America, Central America, the Caribbean places where people can remain,” she argues. “No family leaves on their own will. They have to. Many of them are desperate; they don’t have food for their children.”
That was one of the topics at the Summit of the Americas and she saw progress. “There was a migration agreement for Panama and other countries to help and to retain the migrants that are going through other countries. That is a possible solution for that problem. Mexico, the same thing.”
The right to choose
But looming over all other issues is the question of a woman’s right to choose. This issue and the question of whether to pass an abortion amendment to the state constitution is likely to propel the political debate all the way to November—and Mucarsel-Powell has a unique perspective.
“A woman’s right to choose is on the line right now and as a Latin American woman—I was born in Ecuador, I was raised Catholic—but the majority of women regardless of religion, regardless of background, understand that government should not interfere in that private decision between a mother or a woman, her doctor, her family, her faith and so this is going to be a critical issue in November.”
She continued: “They’re trying to suppress women by taking away their most fundamental right and that is privacy and the right for them to make their own decision about when and how to start a family. It’s also a safety issue for the mother and young women. What message are we sending to our daughters? So I think that’s going to be a critical issue in November and something that as a woman I will make sure to protect that right.”
Mucarsel-Powell welcomed the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow Amendment 4 on the November ballot. But it also provided her the opportunity to highlight Scott’s extreme positions on abortion and his support for a total abortion ban.
When the Supreme Court announced that in addition to allowing the amendment it would also uphold the state’s current six-week abortion ban, Mucarsel-Powell called it “outrageous and dangerous.” She pointed out that “Rick Scott proudly stated he would have signed this ban – a ban with hardly any exceptions – into law if he were governor.” She thinks that this kind of extremism will turn Floridians against Scott and in her favor.
Against extremism
Indeed, Mucarsel-Powell thinks that Floridians are tired of all the political extremism that has dominated the state.
“Unfortunately, because of the extremists who are trying to take over and have all the power in the state, people have felt targeted and intimidated,” she explained. “When a company, when a municipality, when an elected official has spoken against the extremists in Tallahassee there’s been forceful retaliation. What I’ve realized is that a lot of the people in this state have been living in fear and I think so many, regardless of political affiliation, are done with that. And they are organizing, they’re mobilizing, they’re energized.”
She continued: “Every event I go to, there is one Republican at the very least that comes and says, ‘I wanted to come, I wanted to hear you speak, I can’t stand what’s going on, I want to support you, would you speak to more of us?’
“As I travel the state I’m prouder and prouder and prouder of being a Floridian,” she said. “I’ve never been prouder because it’s been tough; for universities, for students, for teachers, for municipalities, for businesses, for the LGBTQ community, for immigrants—you name the group. For seniors, for parents, it doesn’t matter who you are, you’ve somehow been affected by the horrible policies that have been coming out in Tallahassee that Scott has proudly announced that he supports and he’s doing the same thing in DC.
“And so I think we have a really unique opportunity to make sure that we get our state back on track.”
Democracy on the line
It’s a fight, not only about issues and fundamental rights but about the future of democracy and she knows that some hard times lie ahead.
Rick Scott and the rest of her opposition “want to control and take power. They want to take over government to make money from government, so they’re going to do and say whatever they need to say, they’re going to delegitimize the opposition, target the opposition, silence the opposition and intimidate the opposition.
“As a Latin American I know it’s exactly what they do under dictatorships. It’s exactly what Russia does. You can see it. They’re doing everything in their power to target, to intimidate, to harass, to attack—it’s the same tactics.”
But Mucarsel-Powell is undeterred and sees a path to victory in November.
“This is a top pick up opportunity. If we don’t win Florida it’ll be very difficult to keep a Senate majority and we also know that Scott is eyeing leadership. He has expressed that. So it’s more critical than ever. The man will push a national abortion ban. He will sunset Medicare and Social Security. If anyone has any doubt they don’t know who this guy is.”
Her strategy, she says, is simple: “I think the most important strategy is making sure that voters across the state know who I am and what I stand for when they come out to vote. That’s the key to making sure that I win in November.”
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and her extended family. Her husband, Robert, is third from left. She, her mother Imelda, and children are at center. (Photo: Campaign)
Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier at work. (Photo: Author)
April 2, 2024 by David Silverberg
The election for the Mayor and City Council of the City of Naples is now finalized, certified and complete—and holds some lessons for voters both in Southwest Florida and beyond.
On Friday, March 29, the Collier County Canvassing Board certified the results for the non-partisan election. The incumbent mayor, Teresa Heitmann, won her race by 22 votes over competitors Councilman Gary Price and Ted Blankenship. A race for a third seat on the city council was decided by 34 votes.
The final results of the Naples City election. (Chart: Supervisor)
Because the margins were so tight—in the initial, unofficial count on election night, Heitmann was leading by just 12 votes—both races were subject to recounts.
For those unfamiliar with it, the City of Naples, Florida is a small, incorporated municipality of roughly 19,000 people. It resides within Collier County, whose Supervisor of Elections oversees its elections. There were 16,726 eligible voters in this contest, according to the Elections Office and turnout ran about 51 percent.
On the one hand, the smallness of the sample and the specificity of the issues—chiefly, controlling development—in the race make the election results unique to the city.
But on the other hand, given the closeness of the races and the ideological intensity of some of the partisans and candidates, there are larger lessons to be learned.
Lesson 1: Competence won
First, despite the smallness of the electorate, this was not a simple election. Whenever an election is this close and the outcome this uncertain, the supervisor and team overseeing the election count have to be at the top of their game to ensure the accuracy, integrity and legality of the results.
Indeed, sometimes simply making a system function as it ought is a true test of competence and effectiveness. Elections have been under scrutiny and pressure ever since Donald Trump decided to reject the results of the 2020 ballot and lie about its outcome.
In this regard, the Collier County elections office, under the leadership of Supervisor Melissa Blazier, acquitted itself in exemplary fashion. It’s in such instances that the 17 years of experience she had in election management come into play and prove its value.
While there were rumors and accusations about the results, Blazier addressed them in an X posting around noon on the day of the recount.
“Hi! Us again to alert you to some misinformation regarding the City of Naples mayoral race. We get it – the City of Naples races were CLOSE! So close we did a machine recount for both the mayoral race and for city council. The recounts confirmed the results of both races.
“There are some rumors out there that provisional ballots could have changed the results of the mayoral contest, particularly provisional ballots that were cast due to party affiliation,” she wrote. She noted that Florida is a closed primary state where voters must be members of the party on the ballot to vote in the primary and that they had to change their party affiliation by Feb. 20 to vote in the Presidential Preference Primary, which was held the same day.
“On March 22, the canvassing board was presented with 18 provisional ballots due to voters disputing their political party affiliation and casting an illegal ballot which were all rejected by the canvassing board in accordance with Florida election law.”
She continued: “During the review of these 18 provisional ballots, the canvassing board and members of the public who observed the process were presented with the voters’ information and evidence as to why the provisional ballots should be rejected in accordance with Florida election law. This included where the voters live. All 18 of these provisional ballots were not located within the City of Naples which means that the ballot they were issued did not contain the mayor or city council race.”
To date, these conclusions have not been challenged.
In fact, Councilman Ted Blankenship, the third place finisher in the mayoral race, conceded defeat the night of the election, stating in a Facebook post:
“God Bless Naples!
“Thank you to each and every one of you for standing behind me. Together, we ran a race focused on the issues important to our community and our country.
“Unfortunately, it didn’t work out in our favor.
“It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve the people of Naples these last four years. I am disappointed in the results of tonight’s election, but my love for this community has not diminished in the slightest.
“Best wishes to those who were elected to serve our great town!”
Blankenship demonstrated civility and his concession was principled; unlike Trump, he didn’t call fraud or disparage the parties involved.
But his defeat provided its own lesson.
Lesson 2: MAGA doesn’t rule Naples
Alfie Oakes shakes hands with Ted Blankenship during a campaign meeting at his restaurant, Food & Thought 2. (Photo: Blankenship Campaign)
The city election was non-partisan in the sense that the candidates did not run under party labels. But that is not to say that parties and partisans weren’t involved.
Blankenship was the Make America Great Again (MAGA) candidate, endorsed by grocer and farmer Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, an extreme Trumper and MAGA activist. Oakes’ Citizens Awake Now Political Action Committee contributed to his campaign. He was also endorsed by the Collier County Republican Executive Committee, where Oakes is a committeeman, and which contributed $20,000 and an advertisement worth $1,500.
The city results contrasted with the past results in Collier County, where in the 2022 election all the Oakes-endorsed candidates won their races for the county Board of Commissioners and School Board, giving him almost complete dominance of the county. In this he effectively mobilized his thousands of MAGA followers and his Seed to Table market as a political platform.
The resulting county dominance has resulted in passage of anti-federal ordinances, an anti-science inspired restrictive public health law and termination of fluoridation of the county’s water.
But the city election proved that Oakes’ sway stopped at the city line. This came despite the overwhelming Republican advantage in registered voters (10,526 Republicans to Democrats’ 2,523). The results prove that a majority of Naples Republicans are not MAGA/Oakes Republicans—essentially, they’re two separate parties.
Lesson 3: Every single vote counts
There is nothing like an election whose outcome is decided by 22 ballots to drive home the point that absolutely every single vote counts—and that the counting must be done honestly and accurately.
The City of Naples election will hardly rock the nation—but in the upcoming election that will determine the next president, whether women will have the right to choose and if marijuana will be legalized, every single ballot will be precious and prized.
That election will also determine whether Blazier will retain her position as Supervisor of Elections. In this she’s up against two opponents who have absolutely no previous experience in election management and whose chief motivations for running are the discredited conspiracy theories and Big Lie allegations lingering from the 2020 election.
Tim Guerrette in particular, is backed by Oakes and as of last November had received over $89,000 in cash and over $18,000 in in-kind contributions as compared to Blazier’s roughly $62,000 and nearly $9,000 in in-kind contributions.
Guerrette has nothing like the experience and knowledge that Blazier brings to the task. Oakes has attacked machine counting of ballots, which was crucial in ensuring the accuracy of the Naples results so Guerrette would presumably terminate that if he was able.
Ultimately, if a MAGA candidate won the Supervisor of Elections position in November, voters in Collier County would never again have the confidence that their votes were being accurately, competently and neutrally counted—and in a tight election like that of Naples, that would make a big difference.
While the City of Naples election may not have been a preview of the outcome of the August 20 primary election and the Nov. 5 general election, these are some of the important lessons it provided.
And it brought home again just how critical it is for every citizen to have the vote, to exercise it—and to preserve it by keeping America a democracy.
Former President Donald Trump with Rep. Byron Donalds (Photo: Office of Byron Donalds)
March 20, 2024 by David Silverberg
Last Saturday, March 16, Donald Trump, campaigning in Ohio, said: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” Given Trump’s past encouragement of violence and his past incitement of a mob attack on the US Capitol, the resulting furor might be understandable. However, Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans rushed to Trump’s defense, saying that he was only referring to the auto industry.
Republican candidate Donald Trump makes his “bloodbath” statement at a rally in Ohio. (Image: YouTube)
One of the MAGA loyalists vociferously defending Trump was Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), whose Southwest Florida district covers the coastal area from Cape Coral to Marco Island.
“FAKE NEWS ALERT,” he posted on X the next day. “Yesterday, President Trump held a rally in OH. He spoke about how outsourcing the US auto industry would create an economic bloodbath. Now media is deliberately twisting his words in an attempt to dupe the American people. This ‘bloodbath’ hoax is SHAMEFUL.”
In and of itself Donalds’ reflexive defense of Trump was unsurprising. However, another statement was, in its way, even more extreme.
On March 7, Donalds was asked in an interview with the newssite Axios whether if he served as vice president in a Trump administration he would certify the Electoral College votes in the 2028 election.
Donalds said he wouldn’t do so automatically. “If you have state officials who are violating the election law in their states … then no, I would not,” he said, adding that “I already know” states did not follow election laws in 2020.
When asked if he agreed with then-Vice President Mike Pence’s certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2021, Donalds said “you can only ask that question of Mike Pence,” (which doesn’t answer the question, since Donalds was being asked for his opinion of Pence’s actions and had nothing to do with Pence’s opinion).
Donalds’ response raises the possibility—indeed, the likelihood—that if Trump won the presidency with Donalds as vice president, Donalds would enable a possible permanent, lifetime, unelected Trump presidency (really, a dictatorship) by tossing out Electoral votes in any election certification over which he presided.
Donalds is already on record voting to overturn the 2020 election, which he did on Jan. 6, 2021 before the Capitol was invaded by the Trump-incited mob that Donalds characterized that day as “lawless vigilantes” and “a bunch of lunatics.”
That day too, Pence certified the election results—for which action the mob attempted to lynch him.
Eyes on the rise
Donalds’ defense of a Trump “bloodbath” and his willingness to support a lifetime Trump presidency once again puts the spotlight on his longstanding quest to become Trump’s vice president.
Donalds himself has become coy about his aspirations. Last year when the idea apparently first occurred to him or he had some encouragement, he seemed especially eager. Last June he posted in a fundraising message: “…I haven’t heard nearly as much discussion about who the Republican nominee for Vice President should be. It’s critical that the nominee is another America First warrior who will stand up to the radical Left no matter what kind of witch hunts the radical Left and the Deep State throw at the ticket.” There was little doubt who he had in mind.
But in October last year when asked about a potential vice presidential slot at a Fort Myers town hall, according to a Naples Daily News article, he responded, “The speculation is out there. I’ve not talked to the president about it (but) if he goes, ‘All right, Byron, that’s what I want you to do,’ then yeah, all right let’s roll. Because you know it’s about the country.”
Nothing seems to have happened in the intervening time to indicate that Donalds is any closer to being tapped for vice president than was the case then. In fact, if anything, Donalds is further from the possibility.
But it’s worth asking, from Trump’s perspective: what would Donalds bring to a Trump ticket?
Assets
In a traditional political calculation, the vice presidential candidate is picked to balance the top of the ticket based on region, ideology, race, age or gender. Presumably, this “balance” attracts sufficient voters to make a winning majority.
Of course Donald Trump has tossed away all traditional calculations. There’s just no telling what his criteria would be for his vice presidential candidate—although the high likelihood is that it would be blind personal loyalty, subservience and a willingness to obey any command no matter how criminal, unconstitutional or even treasonous, especially given that he encouraged the attempted lynching of Pence when he refused to commit an unconstitutional act at Trump’s command.
But based on traditional calculations, the first and most obvious thing that Donalds would bring to a Trump ticket is just the fact that he is African American.
At its most basic, an African American on the ticket would shield Trump from charges of racism. It might attract the votes of a small sliver of other African Americans.
But Donalds is not the only African American willing to provide racial cover for Trump. He is competing with the much more prominent Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) who ran his own race for president, lost, and then very conspicuously endorsed the man who beat him.
The same applies to Ben Carson, who did the same thing in 2016. After his failed presidential bid he was appointed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the administration. Carson has been actively serving as a Trump surrogate on the campaign trail.
So Donalds must stand out in some other way and the way he appears to have chosen is by ostentatiously trumpeting his total personal allegiance and loyalty to Trump on every media platform available. He has completely bought into every Trump policy and position, no matter how extreme. He has relentlessly attacked President Joe Biden and his administration, proclaimed his belief in the Big Lie of a stolen election in 2020 and was the first Florida Republican politician to endorse Trump when he announced his current run in November 2022.
The public can only guess why Trump continues to overlook and ignore Donalds. However, there are some liabilities that might be factors.
Liabilities
The first liability is that aside from a tiny fraction of the extremely conservative congressional Freedom Caucus, Donalds has no base of his own and what there is, is tenuous as well. It appears to consist mainly of Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-3-Colo.), who appears about to lose her seat, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-14-Ga.), who was kicked out of the Freedom Caucus for being too extreme even for its members, and Rep. Chip Roy (R-21-Texas), who nominated Donalds for Speaker in January 2023.
Rep. Byron Donalds sits uncomfortably between Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene while they both heckle President Joe Biden during his State of the Union speech in 2022. (Photo: Reuters)
His support from other members of Congress is small, judging from the few PACs that contributed to his campaign in 2023. These include House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-1-La.), whose Eye of the Tiger PAC contributed $5,000 to Donalds’ campaign in 2023 as well as Scalise for Congress, which contributed $2,000. Other members of Congress whose PACs have contributed include Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Reps. Jim Jordan (R-4-Ohio), Jason Smith (R-8-Mo.), Patrick McHenry (R-10-NC), John James (R-10-Mich.) and former Wisconsin congressman and current Fox News commentator Sean Duffy.
After two terms Donalds is relatively unknown to the public at large, although he’s been working hard to become more prominent. But he would bring no national following to the ticket. Voters, especially black voters, would be mystified by his presence and likely as not would recoil from what they discovered on closer examination.
Also, despite his clear and undisguised ambition, Donalds has lost every election that he’s entered among his fellow Republican members of Congress. He lost his bid to be Republican conference chair and two bids to become Speaker of the House.
He made these efforts despite having a record that did not qualify him for an office higher than the one he already occupies. He has no significant legislative successes to date, nor can he boast of any congressional achievements, either major or minor. He’s still just a sophomore lawmaker grasping for promotion to the junior class. He doesn’t stand out intellectually, influentially or politically. (It was his presumption in this regard that enraged TV host Joy Reid when she interviewed him following his first bid for the Speakership.)
There is some debate whether a vice president could come from the same state as the president but this has largely been dismissed by analysts, who believe it would be permissible. However, it would introduce a complicating factor and element of uncertainty into any campaign.
More significant would be the searing scrutiny Donalds would undergo as a vice presidential candidate—and which he might not survive. He has already admitted to a drug-related arrest as a young man but there have been previous allegations of wrongdoing that would be re-investigated with far more rigor than in the past.
His private life would become wide open, including all the circumstances of his first marriage, divorce and remarriage. Any other skeletons would tumble out of their closets as well.
In examining the totality of Donalds’ pronouncements, actions and legislation, the portrait that emerges is that of a professional politician, almost wildly driven to rise on the national stage in any venue he can find; it doesn’t matter if that’s as a vice presidential candidate, a gubernatorial candidate or a House Republican leader.
The steppingstone
For voters in the 19th Congressional District, these are abstract considerations over which they have no influence. But in practical, immediate terms, what does Donalds’ approach mean for voters in Southwest Florida, who will have to decide whether to renew his contract in November?
“We’re a stepping stone for him in his ‘illustrious’ career,” Kari Lerner, Donalds’ Democratic opponent, said in an interview with The Paradise Progressive earlier this month. “I think the people of Southwest Florida deserve more than to be a stepping stone. I think they deserve more than to be stepped upon.”
Donalds’ political rise is not going to be enabled by attending to the mundane needs of his Southwest Florida district. There, the ongoing concerns are water, development, population growth, algal blooms, the Everglades, conservation and the tourist economy with the occasional hurricane recovery thrown in—hardly sexy national issues that are springboards to higher office. As Lerner noted, for Donalds Southwest Florida is a steppingstone, not a destination.
So while he has done things like submitting earmarks for projects benefiting the district—after some intense prodding—and writing letters when his constituents were afflicted with industrial pollution, his legislative record regarding his district’s core concerns is barely existent. He has not used whatever leverage he has in the Republican House and with the Republican leadership to advance any meaningful measure improving the lives, health or prosperity of his constituents beyond simply introducing 59 bills that have almost all gone nowhere. (Only one, the FISHES Act, House Resolution 5103 has had a subcommittee hearing.)
Instead, he has pounded the media pavements at every opportunity to raise his profile, grasped at every possible opening for higher position and made sure to reaffirm his utterly blind and unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump.
This does not rebound to the district’s benefit, especially with Gov. Ron DeSantis, on whom Donalds turned his back in favor of Trump. The governor is in a position to veto appropriations to the region or dispense any favors or assistance if needed and he’s known to keep score and retaliate.
Basically, Southwest Florida has an ambitious but distracted representative whose chief focus is on his next possible step up the political ladder rather than on the sands and substance of the district he calls home (and that just barely, since gerrymandering is the only reason his home address is in the district’s boundaries—a favor of the governor, by the way).
On Nov. 5, Donalds’ contract will be up for renewal. District voters should think long and hard whether they should vote to renew it. In a year when so many loyal, traditional, lifelong Republicans have been exiled from the Party by Donald Trump, do they really want to send back to Washington to act and speak on their behalf a fanatically subservient Trumper, a man who is willing to do whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump president for life? This might be the year they want to make a change.
Meanwhile, Donalds has pursued—and is likely to keep pursuing—offices for which he is unqualified by any record of achievement as measured by traditional political calculations and expectations. In each case he has failed to attain his goals when subjected to the judgment of his peers and political elders.
Of course, in this he is likely encouraged by the example of his idol and hero, who attained the highest office in the land despite a complete absence of qualifications, knowledge or fitness.
As he has throughout his political career in Southwest Florida, Donalds has had to square a very difficult circle: he’s an African American in an 85 percent white, heavily conservative MAGA district, where a significant strain of white racism could be expected to influence voting.
What is more, he is mightily laboring in service to a presidential candidate whose racism is blatant, undisguised and appears to extend to Donalds himself.
Donalds has overcome this contradiction by presenting himself as even more extremely Trumpist/MAGA than the most extreme MAGAs in his district and nationwide—with the possible exception of Donald Trump himself.
Clearly, Donalds’ calculation is that the purity of his belief and loyalty will be sufficient for his MAGA voters, his fellow congressional Republicans and Donald Trump himself to overcome any racial prejudice they may harbor. Put another way, they’ll accept him if he’s sufficiently useful to their cause.
The irony is that Donalds’ rise in electoral politics to this point and in this place would have been impossible without the civil rights, racial integration and African American political success of the past century, progress that Trump, MAGAs and white supremacists are trying to undo by making America “great” again.
And, of course, if Trump is elected and establishes a dictatorship, as Donalds has stated he is willing to enable, there won’t be any electoral politics any more for anyone to rise, much less African Americans of any ideological persuasion.
Joe Biden ran for president at age 76 in 2020 because he recognized that he was fighting for nothing less than the soul of America.
An unkind critic might liken Donalds’ defense of Trump’s bloodbath pronouncement and willingness to promote a Trump dictatorship to selling his own soul to gain worldly prominence and power.
The state of Donalds’ soul is up to Donalds himself, of course. But as he continues to commit his soul to Donald Trump, he might want to consider the words of Matthew 16:26 in the New Testament: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
The Paradise Progressive 