Christian Evangelicals and Trump | William R. Black & John Fea

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/HLMhoLHYzIA” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

talking about the rabid Pro Trumper you
48:34
know the
48:35
you know the poll of whites of the world
48:38
Paula white I think firmly believes that
48:40
he’s a Christian and and God is using
48:42
him as a Christian to carry out you know
48:46
the purposes of the gospel or the church
48:49
in the world there’s others for example
48:51
someone like Robert Jeffress from the
48:55
pastor of the First Baptist Church in
48:56
Dallas or even Franklin Graham the son
49:00
of the evangelist Billy Clayton
49:02
evangelist Billy Graham who would say
49:04
sure Trump has his problem sure Trump is
49:06
a sinner I don’t know if Trump has
49:08
accepted Jesus as his Savior or not but
49:12
God like Cyrus God uses imperfect people
49:17
to carry out his plan so so they would
49:22
say it really does you know they would
49:23
say really doesn’t matter whether
49:25
Trump’s a Christian or not he is faith
49:28
friendly and God is using him in this
49:31
kind of incredible way God uses sinners
49:34
and God uses you know people who you
49:39
know have these corrupt lives or immoral
49:41
eyes to carry out his purposes God’s
49:43
ways are not our ways would be the
49:45
arguing and while we well we would think
49:48
that it should be a godly Christian
49:50
leader to help us sometimes God has
49:52
other plans would be the idea here so so
49:55
you get you got a kind of mixed mixed
49:58
views on that depending on which pro
50:00
Trump evangelical you talk to but you
50:04
know and I minded I grew up hearing a
50:06
lot of people who were evangelicals
50:08
saying something those basically the
50:10
reverse about Jimmy Carter were there
50:13
where they would completely grant that
Jimmy Carter was was a you know and
devout then but even even argue that he
was a bad president because he was a
good Christian to be a good president
because he was done you know kick ass
and take names I guess I don’t know
50:31
you’ve encountered during Carter Carter
50:34
is interesting because evangelicals did
50:36
flock to him in 1976 you know he might
50:40
stop supporting that just ants they
50:42
voted for Carter in 76 and 80
50:45
I mean an aphid errol’s Ford
50:49
seventy-six claimed to be some kind of
50:51
an evangelical Christian too so that’s
50:52
very interesting but the Carter was so
50:54
kind of authentic right he he he talked
50:57
about being born again
50:59
even his even his uh even his statement
51:02
about like being tempted to lust from
51:04
you know from women you know was was it
51:09
appealed to certain evangelicals right
51:11
you know that this guy’s honest truly he
51:13
meant they knew at length nobody and I
51:16
think I think what happened was when
51:19
Carter several things I mean one just
51:22
you know you can’t count out the economy
51:24
you know the recession and so forth also
51:27
Carter just did not deliver on the
51:29
things that evangelicals hoped he would
51:32
we talked earlier about the green calmly
to Bob Jones case Jimmy Carter supported
to Bob the supreme court on that he
wanted to desegregate these academies
and this this you know there was
opposition that emerged almost
immediately to Carter when it didn’t
look like he would deliver on abortion
overturn roe v– wade you know try to
try to try to keep the keep the
segregation in place in these academies
so uh you know this is where Falwell and
others so many of you know the story
many our listeners will own story this
is where Falwell and others kind of say
no we thought this guy was was one you
know was going to help our moral cause
and he doesn’t seem to be doing it so uh
so yeah Carter’s a car is a fascinating
character I think it’s probably you know
it’s probably true to say the fact that
he tried to actually live out a kind of
authentic evangelicalism probably did uh
you know hurt his his presidency I mean
he has that famous 1979 malaise speech
in wrench you know he says we are a
52:36
nation that is self-centered selfish we
52:40
only care about each other we don’t
52:41
think about the common good you know and
52:43
then Reagan comes in and just says you
52:45
know do whatever you want right
52:47
individualism freedom right you know
52:50
freedom of religion they love these
52:52
kinds of things no I felt this message
52:55
of self-discipline that Carter puts
52:57
forth which you know is this
52:59
authentically Christian message but you
53:01
know that’s I think
53:02
says a lot about the evangelical
53:04
electorate as well I have one more
53:07
question that you will wrap up but I I
53:12
know you know there’s been debates in
53:15
the Democratic Party about you know
53:17
what’s the right calculus to to defeat
53:21
Trump in 2020 and you know one sidebar
53:27
in that debate is how much should they
53:30
try and win over people who voted for
53:33
Trump yeah yeah and a part of that is
53:38
you know it is it worth trying to talk
53:41
to some evangelicals to vote for Trump
53:43
and to appeal to them you know appeal to
53:49
their values there professor
53:52
what do you think about that yeah yeah I
53:55
mean I wrote a whole book about this so
53:57
I hope yours I hope there’s a
53:59
possibility but I see I see those
54:01
eighty-one percent as as very you know
54:03
there’s there’s diversity within that 81
54:05
percent one of the things I worry about
54:07
with this with the media is that they
54:09
don’t see the diversity of 81 percent
54:12
that 81 percent includes the rabid Trump
54:16
supporters who are evangelicals the
54:18
people who go to the rallies the people
54:20
who supported this guy in the primaries
54:22
when there were other options
54:24
the GOP primaries the people who wear
54:26
the manga hats you know I mean there’s a
54:29
lot of Evangelicals you know I remember
54:30
I remember when Trump came to Harrisburg
54:33
Pennsylvania I’m watching the news
54:36
coverage on it at night you know local
54:37
news coverage and you know I see like
54:40
four or five people from my church in
54:42
line my evangelical church in line right
54:45
so there’s that group what I found after
doing close to 20 or 30 book talks and
and I’m on the road a lot with this book
is that many of those people are just
not going to be convinced by kind of
rational arguments you know politics is
often so much emotional and and and it’s
just gonna be hard to convince those
people however there’s a large large
55:10
number and I don’t know what the
55:11
percentage is but but I also find
55:13
there’s a large number who just don’t
55:14
like Donald Trump they wish
55:16
they didn’t have to vote for him they
55:18
hated Hillary Clinton even more they
55:22
were they they kind of walked the line
55:24
between not voting for the president and
55:26
voting for Trump right or voting for a
55:30
third party candidate and voting for
55:33
Trump and they decided that they were
55:34
going to vote for Trump it’s those kind
55:36
of people that I hope my book is going
55:38
to reach you know and get them to sort
55:42
of rethink you know especially in light
55:44
of everything that’s happened since
55:46
Trump’s been elected all of the kind of
55:49
misogyny and racist Arbenz a comet if
55:53
charlottesville he has an awful
55:54
immigration policy and so forth on the
55:57
other hand you can’t count out the
56:00
economy right the economy is doing
56:02
really really well a lot of youth
56:03
angelica’s may not vote on moral issues
56:06
they may vote on economic issues in 2020
56:08
but when you think about it this way
56:10
right you don’t need too many
56:11
evangelicals to have their minds changed
56:14
for for for a Democrat to win in 2020 I
56:19
mean Hillary won by three million votes
56:22
the popular vote so so you know in
56:26
places like Pennsylvania which you know
56:29
where we saw in the 2018 midterms we saw
56:33
mostly Democratic candidates being
56:35
elected governor senator the the conquer
56:40
Congress seats almost all many of them
56:42
flipped to Democrat you know place like
56:46
Michigan and Wisconsin you don’t need
56:48
too many votes to turn those states back
56:50
towards a Democratic candidate so I’m
56:52
not you know I’m kind of you know a lot
56:56
of people are saying well if the
56:57
economy’s good Trump’s gonna win again
56:59
I’m not entirely convinced about that at
57:02
least if you can turn some evangelicals
57:04
you know you might you might have a
57:06
chance to knock him off in 2020 well
57:09
here’s here’s a question then if if the
57:14
Democrats have a nominee who is more
57:17
likable than Hillary Clinton yeah do you
57:20
think at least there’ll be sizeable you
57:23
know statistically significant number
57:26
vocals who will at
57:28
perhaps not vote for the Democrat but
57:30
feel like they don’t have to vote for
57:32
Khurana
57:32
yeah Hillary Clinton is a problem with
57:35
the problem for white conservative
57:36
evangelicals for two reasons one is one
57:40
is one as she represents everything
57:42
about sort of what white evangelicals
57:45
see as progressivism right pretty
57:47
pro-choice not doing much to defend
57:50
Christian values religious liberty
57:52
particularly marriage you know she’s big
57:56
government and so forth any Democratic
57:58
candidate that runs is going to have
58:00
those same problems with white
58:01
evangelicals unless it’s like a pro-life
58:05
democrat right that’s like Bob Casey
58:07
from Pennsylvania runs who completely
58:10
who evangelicals backed over Rick
58:12
Santorum right and then drove Rick
58:14
Santorum out this is my home state so I
58:16
know these races pretty well the other
58:20
problem the other problem white
58:21
evangelicals had with Hillary Clinton
58:22
was that she was Hillary Clinton you
58:24
know the baggage going back to the bill
58:27
scandals with Monica Lewinsky going back
58:30
to the lying the you know she’s saying
58:33
right-wing conspiracy and blah blah blah
58:36
the deplorable slide you know nobody
58:39
Clinton made a lot of mistakes among
58:41
white evangelicals I don’t think I don’t
58:43
think if she corrected those mistakes
58:45
she would have won over many white
58:46
evangelicals to her side but she may
58:48
have turned some white evangelicals away
58:51
from Donald Trump towards a third party
58:53
candidate or towards just not voting in
58:56
the presidential election so you know
58:59
we’ll see what happens you could have a
59:01
Democrat who and if it’s a traditional
59:05
Democrat on the moral questions that
59:07
Emma Jellico’s hold dear in 2020 I just
59:11
I think I think they’re still gonna
59:14
they’re not gonna vote for that Democrat
59:16
but because it’s not Hillary Clinton
59:18
they may say well we could put up with
59:19
this guy or this one as opposed to you
59:23
know their four years of Trump I heard
59:26
something you said this but someone
59:29
compared Hillary Clinton’s sort of
59:33
relationship as a cultural icon to the
59:37
women’s rights movement to Jesse
59:39
Jackson’s relationship to the civil
59:41
and the argument was that in the same
59:47
way that Jesse Jackson couldn’t become
59:50
president because of just all the
59:53
baggage that comes with being part of
59:54
that generation yeah someone from the
59:59
second generation like Obama didn’t have
60:01
that package
60:02
yeah next woman right is the argument
60:07
that I’ve heard from women’s rights
60:11
movement but not be associated with all
60:14
the baggage came with having to fight
60:16
that fight yeah no no six or seven yeah
60:19
yeah no it’s there’s probably some truth
60:21
to that we’ll see you know I don’t know
60:24
how many women candidates are out there
60:25
you hear about come out Kamala Harris
60:28
Kristin Gillibrand I mean you know we’ll
60:32
see what happens I’m not sure well I I
60:37
forgot to mention the start but I will
60:39
plug you are you run a great blog that’s
60:43
also the title of your first book and
60:46
the title of your podcast which is right
60:48
the way of improvement leads home which
60:53
what’s the URL is it way of improvement
60:56
way of improvement calm way of
60:59
improvement calm or no that’s instead
61:06
Zealand yes I encourage people check out
61:17
your blog your podcast and you tweet at
61:22
John fear one john thea one yep jo hn f
61:28
EI one yeah and i tweet at william are
61:35
black and in your book believe me the
61:39
evangelical road to Donald Trump would
61:42
be a good stocking stuffer when you have
61:47
those conversations at Christmas right I
61:49
did a promo for the book on I tweeted I
61:52
said you just got done with these
61:53
conversations over Thanks
61:55
giving with your pro-trump evangelical
61:57
friends and you wish you had some more
61:58
arguments for when Christmas or the
62:00
December holidays come around right get
62:03
this book you have a month to read it in
62:05
preparation for Christmas dinner or
62:07
whatever it might be well thanks for
62:12
coming on I love to have you on again
62:14
sometime and great thanks for having me
62:17
bill thank you

It’s Now Donald Trump’s America. But George Bush’s Stamp Endures.

Arguably, that moment proved a precursor to this one as conservatives angry at his apostasy, led by a onetime backbench congressman from Georgia named Newt Gingrich, rose to power within the Republican Party and toppled the old establishment. The harder-edged Gingrich revolution in some ways foreshadowed Mr. Trump’s extraordinary takeover of the party.

Mr. Meacham said the current world of cable talk and relentless partisanship took shape during Mr. Bush’s era. “He saw it all coming, and he didn’t like it,” he said.

Mark K. Updegrove, the author of “The Last Republicans,” about the two Bush presidencies, said, “In so many ways, Bush was the antithesis of the Republican leadership we see today.” He embodied, Mr. Updegrove added, “the

  • humility,
  • civility and
  • self-sacrifice

of the best of the World War II generation. He played tough but fair, making friends on both sides of the aisle and rejecting the notion of politics as a zero-sum game.”

.. For all of the condolences and tributes pouring in to the Bush home in Houston from every corner of the world on Saturday, Mr. Trump’s very presidency stands as a rebuke to Mr. Bush. Never a proponent of “kinder and gentler” politics, Mr. Trump prefers a brawl, even with his own party. The “new world order” of free-trade, alliance-building internationalism that Mr. Bush championed has been replaced by Mr. Trump’s “America First” defiance of globalism.

.. Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he sees the go-along-to-get-along style that defined Mr. Bush’s presidency as inadequate to advance the nation in a hostile world. Gentility and dignity, hallmarks of Mr. Bush, are signs of weakness to Mr. Trump. In his view, Mr. Bush’s version of leadership left the United States exploited by allies and adversaries, whether on economics or security.

.. Mr. Bush was, in effect, president of the presidents’ club, the father of one other commander in chief and the father figure to another, Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter always appreciated that Mr. Bush’s administration treated him better than Ronald Reagan’s or Mr. Clinton’s, while Barack Obama expressed admiration for the elder Mr. Bush when he ran for the White House.

.. Mr. Obama was among the last people to see Mr. Bush alive.

.. “What the hell was that, by the way, thousand points of light?” Mr. Trump asked scornfully at a campaign rally in Great Falls, Mont., in July. “What did that mean? Does anyone know? I know one thing: Make America great again, we understand. Putting America first, we understand. Thousand points of light, I never quite got that one.”

.. “It’s so easy to be presidential,” Mr. Trump said at a campaign rally in Wheeling, W.Va. “But instead of having 10,000 people outside trying to get into this packed arena, we’d have about 200 people standing right there. O.K.? It’s so easy to be presidential. All I have to do is ‘Thank you very much for being here, ladies and gentlemen. It’s great to see you off — you’re great Americans. Thousand points of light.’ Which nobody has really figured out.”

.. In 1988, when Mr. Bush was seeking the presidency, Mr. Trump offered himself as a running mate. Mr. Bush never took the idea seriously, deeming it “strange and unbelievable,”

.. “I don’t know much about him, but I know he’s a blowhard. And I’m not too excited about him being a leader.” Rather than being motivated by public service, Mr. Bush said, Mr. Trump seemed to be driven by “a certain ego.”

People don’t vote for what they want. They vote for who they are.

You remember the photo, taken in early August, of two men at an Ohio Trump rally whose matching T-shirts read, “I’d rather be a Russian than a Democrat.” (Now you can buy them online for $14.) It was a gibe that spoke to our moment. The Republican brand — as with presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney — used to be pointedly anti-Russian; Romney called Moscow our chief global enemy. In the Trump era, though, you can be a Republican Russophile for whom Vladi­mir Putin is a defender of conservative values. American politics, it has become plain, is driven less by ideological commitments than by partisan identities — less by what we think than by what we are. Identity precedes ideology.

“The Democratic Party today is divided over whether it wants to focus on the economy or identity,”

.. So does the assumption that the great majority of Republicans who support Trump are drawn to his noxious views. (That’s the good news in the bad news.) Among candidates who led in the Republican primaries, after all, his percentage of the vote was the lowest in nearly half a century.

.. Identity groups come to rally behind their leaders, and partisan identification wouldn’t be so stable if it didn’t allow for a great deal of ideological flexibility. That’s why rank-and-file Republicans could go from “We need to stand up to Putin!” to “Why wouldn’t we want to get along with Putin?” in the time it takes to say: Rubio’s out, Trump’s in.

.. The best predictor of ideological animus, the study found, wasn’t a respondent’s opinions or even how strongly she held them, but what label she embraced, conservative or liberal.

.. Mason calls this “identity-based ideology,” as opposed to “issue-based ideology.”

.. Either formulation is a polite way of saying that political cleavages are not so much “I disagree with your views” as “I hate your stupid face.” You can be an ideologue without ideology.

.. “Implicit bias,” and the special tests designed to measure it, come up often in the wake of police shootings and #BlackLivesMatter. They show in-group preferences among whites and among blacks. But experiments suggest that partisan in-group preferences are far more powerful.

.. between 30 and 60 percent of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans want their kids to marry in the party.

.. Long before anyone instructs children to group people into categories, research tells us, they’re programmed to do it anyway, and one of our basic ways of making sense of the world is to form generalizations of the sort linguists call “generics” — such as “bears eat people” or “tick bites give you Lyme disease.” Those generalizations count as true, but it’s not easy to say why. Hardly any bears have eaten people , and less than 2 percent of tick bites transmit the Lyme spirochete. But, as the philosopher Sarah-Jane Leslie has argued, we’re more likely to accept a generic if it involves a reason for concern, such as getting eaten or getting sick.

.. generics encourage us to think of the class in question as a kind, a group with a shared essence. To show how this works, Leslie joined with psychologists Marjorie Rhodes and Christina Tworek to design an experiment in which 4-year-olds were shown pictures of a fictional kind of person they called a Zarpie. The people in the pictures were male and female, black, white, Latino, Asian, young and old. With one group of 4-year-olds, the experimenters made lots of generic remarks. (“Zarpies are scared of ladybugs” and the like.) With another group, they made specific statements, not generic ones. (“Look at this Zarpie! He’s afraid of ladybugs!”) A couple of days later, they showed the kids a Zarpie and said he made a buzzing sound. It turned out that the children who’d heard a lot of generics about Zarpies were much more likely to believe that all Zarpies made buzzing sounds. Generic talk encouraged them to think of Zarpies as a category of person.

.. Generic remarks about people, in short, encourage you to think of them as a kind, and you’re more likely to accept a generic claim about a group if it’s negative or worrying. (Liberals hate America; conservatives are bigots.)

.. As everyone knows on some level, we’re tribal creatures. We not only belong to groups but are easily triggered to take arms against other groups. Evolutionary psychologists think these dispositions helped our ancestors survive by creating groups they could rely on to deal with the perils of prehistoric life ..

.. True, that was before cable news and social media. But those us-and-them instincts remain an indelible part of human nature.

.. if tribalism is responsible for some of the worst aspects of our politics, it’s also responsible for some of the best. According to the historian David Herbert Donald, the 19th-century abolitionists belonged to a tribe — essentially, an old-line Northern elite displaced by a new commercial and manufacturing class — that sought to regain its position through ethical crusades. The moral math was correct, but social identity was what helped it spread.

.. Almost the entire South went in 1976 for Jimmy Carter, who won by wide margins in notably white stateslike Arkansas and Tennessee. Voters who had supported states-rights candidates got behind the progressive from Plains, Ga., because — well, they were Southern Democrats, and so was Carter

.. the region didn’t become reliably Republican until the late 1990s. A generation of Southern Democrats had to die first.

.. To wish away identity politics is to wish away gravity. It burdens us, but it also grounds us. A workable politics enlists its force — and broadens its scope

Salvadoran Civil War

Murder of Archbishop Romero

In February 1980 Archbishop Óscar Romero published an open letter to US President Jimmy Carter in which he pleaded with him to suspend the United States’ ongoing program of military aid to the Salvadoran regime. He advised Carter that “Political power is in the hands of the armed forces. They know only how to repress the people and defend the interests of the Salvadoran oligarchy.” Romero warned that US support would only “sharpen the injustice and repression against the organizations of the people which repeatedly have been struggling to gain respect for their fundamental human rights.”[66] On 24 March 1980, the Archbishop was assassinated while celebrating mass, the day after he called upon Salvadoran soldiers and security force members to not follow their orders to kill Salvadoran civilians. President Jimmy Carter stated this was a “shocking and unconscionable act”.[67] At his funeral a week later, government-sponsored snipers in the National Palace and on the periphery of the Gerardo Barrios Plaza were responsible for the shooting of 42 mourners.[68]

.. Murder and rape of US nuns

.. On December 2, 1980, members of the Salvadoran National Guard were suspected to have raped and murdered four American nuns and a laywoman. Maryknoll missionary nuns Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Ursuline nun Dorothy Kazel, and laywoman Jean Donovan were on a Catholic relief mission providing food, shelter, transport, medical care, and burial to death squad victims. U.S. military aid was briefly cut off in response to the murders but would be renewed within six weeks. The outgoing Carter administration increased military aid to the Salvadoran armed forces to $10 million which included $5 million in rifles, ammunition, grenades and helicopters.[72]

 

“Draining the Sea”

.. In its effort to defeat the insurgency, the Salvadoran Armed Forces carried out a “scorched earth” strategy, adopting tactics similar to those being employed by the counterinsurgency in neighboring Guatemala. These tactics were primarily derived and adapted from U.S. strategy during the Vietnam War and taught by American military advisors.[76]

.. An integral part of the Salvadoran Army’s counterinsurgency strategy entailed “draining the sea” or “drying up the ocean,” that is, eliminating the insurgency by eradicating its support base in the countryside. The primary target was the civilian population – displacing or killing them in order to remove any possible base of support for the rebels. The concept of “draining the sea” had its basis in a doctrine by Mao Zedong which emphasized that “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.”[77]

 

.. “This may be an effective strategy for winning the war. It is, however, a strategy that involves the use of terror tactics—bombings, strafings, shellings and, occasionally, massacres of civilians.”[78]

.. On 18 March, three days after the sweep in Cabañas began, 4-8,000 survivors of the sweep (mostly women and children) attempted to cross the Rio Lempa into Honduras to flee violence. There, they were caught between Salvadoran and Honduran troops. The Salvadoran Air Force, subsequently bombed and strafed the fleeing civilians with machine gun fire, killing hundreds

.. Atlacatl was a rapid response counter-insurgency battalion organized at the US Army School of the Americas in Panama in 1980.

.. Atlacatl soldiers were equipped and directed by U.S. military advisers operating in El Salvador[82][83] and were described as “the pride of the United States military team in San Salvador. Trained in antiguerrilla operations, the battalion was intended to turn a losing war around.”[84]

.. The November 1981 operation was commanded by Lt. Col. Sigifredo Ochoa, a former Treasury Police chief with a reputation for brutality. Ochoa was close associate of Major Roberto D’Aubuisson and was alleged to have been involved in the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero.

.. Col. Ochoa claimed that hundreds of guerrillas had been killed but was able to show journalists only fifteen captured weapons, half of them virtual antiques, suggesting that most of those killed in the sweep were unarmed.[87]

.. he field commander said they were under orders to kill everyone, including the children, who he asserted would just grow up to become guerrillas if they let them live. “We were going to make an example of these people,” he said.[90

.. El Mozote Massacre

.. The US steadfastly denied the existence of the El Mozote massacre, dismissing reports of it as leftist “propaganda,” until secret US cables were declassified in the 1990s.[91

.. The army and death squads forced many of them to flee to the United States, but most were denied asylum.[95]

.. A US congressional delegation that on January 17–18, 1981, visited the refugee camps in El Salvador on a fact finding mission submitted a report to Congress which found that: “the Salvadoran method of ‘drying up the ocean’ is to eliminate entire villages from the map, to isolate the guerrillas, and deny them any rural base off which they can feed.”[96]

.. El Salvador’s National Federation of Lawyers, which represented all of the country’s bar associations, refused to participate in drafting the 1982 electoral law. The lawyers said that the elections couldn’t possibly be free and fair during a state of siege that suspended all basic rights and freedoms.

.. Fearful of a d’Aubuisson presidency for public relations purposes, the CIA financed Duarte’s campaign with some two million dollars.[113]

.. Nearly two weeks earlier, US Vice President Dan Quayle on a visit to San Salvador told army leaders that human rights abuses committed by the military had to stop. Sources associated with the military said afterword that Quayle’s warning was dismissed as propaganda for American consumption aimed at the US Congress and the U.S. public.[131] At the same time, U.S. advisers were sending a different message to the Salvadoran military – “do what you need to do to stop the commies, just don’t get caught“.[132] A former U.S. intelligence officer suggested the death squads needed to leave less visual evidence, that they should stop dumping bodies on the side of the road because “they have an ocean and they ought to use it“.[133]

.. After 10 years of war, more than one million people had been displaced out of a population of 5,389,000. 40% of the homes of newly displaced people were completely destroyed and another 25% were in need of major repairs

.. At war’s end, the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador registered more than 22,000 complaints of political violence in El Salvador, between January 1980 and July 1991, 60 percent about summary killing, 25 percent about kidnapping, and 20 percent about torture. These complaints attributed almost 85 percent of the violence to the Salvadoran Army and security forces alone.

  • The Salvadoran Armed Forces, which were massively supported by the United States (4.6 billion euros), were accused in 60 percent of the complaints,
  • the security forces (i.e. the National Guard, Treasury Police and the National Police) in 25 percent,
  • military escorts and civil defense units in 20 percent of complaints,
  • the death squads in approximately 10 percent, and
  • the FMLN in 5 percent.[157]

.. The report concluded that more than 70,000 people were killed, many in the course of gross violation of their human rights. More than 25 per cent of the populace was displaced as refugees before the U.N. peace treaty in 1992

.. The State’s terrorism was affected by the security forces, the Army, the National Guard, and the Treasury Police;[1]:308[167] yet it was the paramilitary death squads who gave the Government plausible deniability of, and accountability for, the political killings. Typically, a death squad dressed in civilian clothes and traveled in anonymous vehicles (dark windows, blank license plates). Their terrorism consisted of publishing future-victim death lists, delivering coffins to said future victims, and sending the target-person an invitation to his/her own funeral.[168][169

.. the objective of death-squad-terror seemed not only to eliminate opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfigurement of bodies, to terrorize the population.[170

.. the FMLN continuously violated the human rights of many Salvadorans and other individuals identified as right-wing supporters,

  • military targets,
  • pro-government politicians,
  • intellectuals,
  • public officials, and
  • judges.

These violations included

kidnapping, bombings, rape, and killing.[158]

.. the constitution was amended to prohibit the military from playing an internal security role except under extraordinary circumstances

..  By 1993—nine months ahead of schedule—the military had cut personnel from a wartime high of 63,000 to the level of 32,000 required by the peace accords. By 1999, ESAF’s strength stood at less than 15,000

Human Rights Commission of El Salvador

.. On 26 October 1987, Herbert Ernesto Anaya, head of the CDHES, was assassinated

 

.. Many of the documents, from the CIA and the Defense Department, are not available