Most of us grew up convinced that a democratic form of government is preferred over any other system out there, and many believe naively that all democracies are alike. We tend to equate democracy with freedom, and whenever we hear of anti-government demonstrations in other countries we instinctively assume that the demonstrators aspire to change their system of government to a democratic one - one just like ours.
The facts are that not all democracies are alike, that democratic traditions have evolved over time, and that even our founding fathers were very critical of democracy in its purest form. John Adam was quoted as saying that "remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Benjamin Franklin thought that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." And Libertarian Ron Paul opined that: "The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this."
Our founders designed a republican form of government, incorporating public participation in selecting leaders with a system of checks and balances to control dominance by any one center of power. During the early years, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, James Madison produced the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which listed specific prohibitions on governmental power. These rights, like freedom of speech, religion, belief, property ownership, assembly and dissent, roughly based on the Magna Carta, a charter agreed upon between King John and his barons in England in 1215, were institutionalized, and did not only protect us against the abuse of a tyrant, but also from democratic majorities. In most western countries that adopted some form of democratic government, the protection of basic liberties became intertwined with the electoral system and became what we now refer to as a "liberal democracy."
More than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies - regimes in which political parties compete and come to power in regularly scheduled elections. This is up from 40 percent in the late 1980s. However, not all of these democracies continue to provide equal protection under the law. While many started out by guaranteeing liberties to their citizens, in some cases even enshrining these protections in constitutions or basic laws, in an increasing number of countries individual freedoms are disappearing.
In some, like the old Soviet Union, a democratic system was proclaimed, even to the point of literally copying our Constitution. In reality its "democracy" only resembled the liberal variety and never lived up to its promise. In countries like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Iraq and the Philippines a "democratic shell" remains, meaning that elections do take place, but the elected governments manage to change relevant laws eliminating many of the freedoms we have become accustomed to, ignoring constitutional limits on their power while concentrating most if not all political power in the executive, legitimized by claims of support by the majority party. These countries have in fact become "illiberal."
Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton peace accords, on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, lamented: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That's the dilemma." (Fareed Zakaria, "Doubts about Democracy," Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1997.}
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria who as far back as 1997 articulated his concerns about the trend towards illiberal democracy in a growing number of countries is now projecting that we may be on track to experience something similar in our country. He believes that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices. In other words democratic behavior, and he suggests that our culture of liberal democracy is waning. According to Zakaria our political parties have collapsed, and have become "mere vessels for whoever wins the primaries. Congress has caved, professional groups have become largely toothless, and the media has been rendered irrelevant." ("America's democracy has become illiberal," Washington Post, Dec. 29, 016).
From the President's assertion that the media only produces "fake news," to his senior advisor's proclamation that there is "no such thing as judicial supremacy," and that "what the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States," when reacting to the 9th Circuit Court's decision to deny lifting a temporary restraining order on the administration's travel ban, we ought to stay alert and resist descending into the same abyss many other countries are falling into.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
MASS DEPORTATION - POPULIST DREAM, FISCAL INSANITY
During his campaign for President, Donald Trump's stump speeches almost always included his intent to "enhance" border security and deport all undocumented immigrants currently in the country. In June of 2015 he told his audience that he "would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, and I build them very inexpensively." A few months later he announced that he would deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, claiming to be able to do this within 18 months to 2 years. (Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2015). A year later he reiterated his intent, and doubled down on his deportation plans, proclaiming: "There will be no amnesty." (CNN, September 1, 2016). On January 25 President Trump signed executive orders to start building the wall, create more detention space for illegal immigrants, and to boost the deportation force, boasting that he is fulfilling a promise made to his political base. Since he is a self-proclaimed successful business man, it seems odd that Mr. Trump apparently spent little time calculating the fiscal consequences of his grandiose scheme.
The financial consequences are staggering. The American Action Forum, a conservative leaning Washington think tank which analyzed Trump's plans, in a study titled: "The Labor and Output Declines from Removing all Undocumented Immigrants," (May 5, 2016), uncovered some eye-popping statistics. Its analysis concluded that, in the broad economy, private-sector output would be reduced by roughly $380 billion to $680 billion - with the largest contractions in the farming and construction industries. Taken at face value, the labor force would shrink by about 5%, the equivalent of removing all the workers from both North and South Carolina. Another report, produced by the Center for American Progress, projected that California could lose $100 billion of its GDP, Texas $60 billion, and New Jersey $25 billion. All but 5 U.S. states would see at least a 1% of their GDP each year. ("The Economic Impact of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers," September 21, 2016). Add to these numbers the actual cost of erecting that "beautiful wall," which pencils out closer to $25 billion, instead of the $10 billion to $15 billion our politicians prefer to project, and the annual reduction in U.S. GDP will be about $1 trillion, just a hair below the total GDP of Mexico. (Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2016).
Moreover, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that undocumented immigrants contribute about $11.6 billion in taxes each year. Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total U.S. workforce. Undocumented workers occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just 4% of the total homes in the U.S.. UCLA research indicates that immigrants produce $15 billion of economic activity every year. Since nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, it projects that approximately 8 million U.S. jobs are dependent on economic activity produced by illegal immigrants in the U.S. . (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Real Earnings," 2011), and (UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, "Labor Market
Impacts of Amnesty.")
In addition, the logistics involved in executing this "project" are tremendously challenging. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has the capacity to remove roughly 400,000 people per year. Deporting more than 11 million people within two years would mean boosting the ICE's ranks from the current 5,000 workers devoted to apprehending undocumented immigrants to more than 90,000. Not only that, a recent study projects that it would take 32,000 new immigration attorneys to process cases, hundreds of thousands
of extra detention beds, 17,000 chartered airplane flights, and 30,000 bus trips each year.
None of this is intended to suggest that border security is not a legitimate concern. It is. So is considering the consequences of pursuing ill-considered policies solely intended to placate a political
base. Popular opinion does not develop in a vacuum. Our populist base believes whatever politicians taking advantage of its fears and disgruntlement feed it. Roughly 40% of all undocumented workers in this country are illegal because they overstay their visas. Although Mexico is still the dominant source of illegal immigration, its contribution has declined to around 52%, while unauthorized immigration from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa has significantly increased. (The Pew Research Center, "Hispanic Trends," September 20, 2016). Undocumented workers do not take American jobs away. In fact, deporting unauthorized immigrants will have an adverse effect on economic activity, and leads to reducing job opportunities for legal citizens. Immigrants, illegal, undocumented, unauthorized, or whatever anyone wants to call them, contribute substantially to our economy. It is time to change the conversation. Our politicians, especially those who feel compelled to support our President in whatever he suggests, need to decide to what extent they will support a likely ineffective deportation policy, a populist pipe dream which is politically popular, or come back to earth to fiscal sanity.
The financial consequences are staggering. The American Action Forum, a conservative leaning Washington think tank which analyzed Trump's plans, in a study titled: "The Labor and Output Declines from Removing all Undocumented Immigrants," (May 5, 2016), uncovered some eye-popping statistics. Its analysis concluded that, in the broad economy, private-sector output would be reduced by roughly $380 billion to $680 billion - with the largest contractions in the farming and construction industries. Taken at face value, the labor force would shrink by about 5%, the equivalent of removing all the workers from both North and South Carolina. Another report, produced by the Center for American Progress, projected that California could lose $100 billion of its GDP, Texas $60 billion, and New Jersey $25 billion. All but 5 U.S. states would see at least a 1% of their GDP each year. ("The Economic Impact of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers," September 21, 2016). Add to these numbers the actual cost of erecting that "beautiful wall," which pencils out closer to $25 billion, instead of the $10 billion to $15 billion our politicians prefer to project, and the annual reduction in U.S. GDP will be about $1 trillion, just a hair below the total GDP of Mexico. (Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2016).
Moreover, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that undocumented immigrants contribute about $11.6 billion in taxes each year. Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total U.S. workforce. Undocumented workers occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just 4% of the total homes in the U.S.. UCLA research indicates that immigrants produce $15 billion of economic activity every year. Since nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, it projects that approximately 8 million U.S. jobs are dependent on economic activity produced by illegal immigrants in the U.S. . (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Real Earnings," 2011), and (UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, "Labor Market
Impacts of Amnesty.")
In addition, the logistics involved in executing this "project" are tremendously challenging. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has the capacity to remove roughly 400,000 people per year. Deporting more than 11 million people within two years would mean boosting the ICE's ranks from the current 5,000 workers devoted to apprehending undocumented immigrants to more than 90,000. Not only that, a recent study projects that it would take 32,000 new immigration attorneys to process cases, hundreds of thousands
of extra detention beds, 17,000 chartered airplane flights, and 30,000 bus trips each year.
None of this is intended to suggest that border security is not a legitimate concern. It is. So is considering the consequences of pursuing ill-considered policies solely intended to placate a political
base. Popular opinion does not develop in a vacuum. Our populist base believes whatever politicians taking advantage of its fears and disgruntlement feed it. Roughly 40% of all undocumented workers in this country are illegal because they overstay their visas. Although Mexico is still the dominant source of illegal immigration, its contribution has declined to around 52%, while unauthorized immigration from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa has significantly increased. (The Pew Research Center, "Hispanic Trends," September 20, 2016). Undocumented workers do not take American jobs away. In fact, deporting unauthorized immigrants will have an adverse effect on economic activity, and leads to reducing job opportunities for legal citizens. Immigrants, illegal, undocumented, unauthorized, or whatever anyone wants to call them, contribute substantially to our economy. It is time to change the conversation. Our politicians, especially those who feel compelled to support our President in whatever he suggests, need to decide to what extent they will support a likely ineffective deportation policy, a populist pipe dream which is politically popular, or come back to earth to fiscal sanity.
Friday, January 27, 2017
OBAMACARE - COMMUNITIES RESPOND TO "REPEAL AND REPLACE"
Ever since Congress adopted the Affordable Care Act Republicans have been committed to repealing it. In fact, many party members up for re-election successfully employed the mantra "repeal and replace Obamacare" during their campaigns. Now that they have a majority in both houses and a President in the White House, Republicans face the daunting prospect of needing to deliver. They are finding out that it is much easier to make bold political promises than it is to follow thru on them, and that replacing an intricate framework for one-sixth of the economy is easier said than done. Lousise Radnofsky, writing in the Wall Street Journal, summarized the conundrum as follows: "Republicans are caught between competing forces: a desire to take bold steps in remaking health care along conservative lines, and the political restrictions that come with a six-year old law that is already entwined through the American health system." She also published the results of a new Wall Street Journal/ NBC New poll that finds that right now 45% of Americans think that the health law is "a good idea," for the first time out-polling those who dislike the law.
During a recent interview, President Trump announced that he has a plan that will simultaneously repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He has just been waiting for his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed. (Under pointed questioning from senators considering his nomination, Dr. Price admitted that he was unaware of such a plan). To kick-start the process, Trump's first executive order directed government agencies to scale back as many aspects of ACA as possible. Meanwhile both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that would allow Republicans to repeal the tax and spending provisions of ACA with simple majority votes, bypassing a possible Democratic filibuster. House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to these as part of a "rescue mission."
Although the mechanism for "repeal" much of the law was agreed upon, proposals on how to replace what is taken away are nowhere near complete. Some have advocated for repeal, and delay implementation to some date beyond the next election cycle, which is two years away. This strategy was suggested, in part, because they really don't agree on how to proceed, and partially because many Republicans have serious concerns about political fall-out during the upcoming mid-term elections. An estimated 22 million Americans who gained coverage under ACA could lose their insurance. Many more have pre-existing health conditions insurers were able to deny coverage for, or who were charged excess premiums prior to ACA. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion prompted by the law will not only remove millions of low-income Americans from their insurance coverage, by converting the program to so-called "block grants" to the states will effectively eliminate it as an entitlement. The American Hospital Association estimates that during the 2018-2026 period hospital operating costs will increase by $400 billion. And, on top of these and other disturbing statistics, budget conscious legislator point out that, during the next ten years , a suitable replacement for Obamacare will add an estimated $9.7 trillion to the national debt.
Given that the discussion in Washington has turned into a political circus lacking a safety net, communities across the country are attempting to anticipate the consequences of repeal, and are constructing responses. A few weeks ago I became aware of one of these efforts in a community not far from Seattle, Washington. Its key health advocate expressed the group's mindset as follows:
"In a rural county of 33,000 people, I am helping to organize a network of community health advocates. The goal is to support our neighbors in wellness. That means helping people learn about health resources, access care and have a health plan that is adequate and affordable. Two groups are key to this organizing effort: a resource team of individuals with experience in education and care; and an outreach team with representation from a broad base of community and neighborhood organizations. Our aim is to provide basic training and information for as many local groups as possible throughout the county, so that each will have their own community health advocate. Two examples: A volunteer health advocate is available each week at the town food bank, and volunteer community health advocates are serving in congregations to assists individuals who have unmet medical and mental needs. We are reaching out to senior groups, social service programs, voluntary organizations of all kinds, small businesses, parents and student groups, recreational programs and cultural groups.
Since both political parties have an important role to play in our health conversations, I am also interested in how, with the help of the local Republican and Democratic organizations, community health advocates could be made available in every precinct in the county.
Wellbeing is not simply an individual matter. When we are ill we need the support of others. Very few of us can afford to save or bear the cost of care for an accident, a long-term illness or a chronic condition. None of us alone have all the knowledge we need to lead healthy lives. Healing and wholeness involves encouraging relationships with others, the help of family and friends, and the support of the wider community."
The principal organizers of this effort are hard at work developing a structure that will allow them to replicate successes across their county, and ultimately across the country. Perhaps our politicians should stop their ideological grand-standing, and consider elements from attempts designed to offset the anticipated changes people are worried about.
During a recent interview, President Trump announced that he has a plan that will simultaneously repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He has just been waiting for his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed. (Under pointed questioning from senators considering his nomination, Dr. Price admitted that he was unaware of such a plan). To kick-start the process, Trump's first executive order directed government agencies to scale back as many aspects of ACA as possible. Meanwhile both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that would allow Republicans to repeal the tax and spending provisions of ACA with simple majority votes, bypassing a possible Democratic filibuster. House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to these as part of a "rescue mission."
Although the mechanism for "repeal" much of the law was agreed upon, proposals on how to replace what is taken away are nowhere near complete. Some have advocated for repeal, and delay implementation to some date beyond the next election cycle, which is two years away. This strategy was suggested, in part, because they really don't agree on how to proceed, and partially because many Republicans have serious concerns about political fall-out during the upcoming mid-term elections. An estimated 22 million Americans who gained coverage under ACA could lose their insurance. Many more have pre-existing health conditions insurers were able to deny coverage for, or who were charged excess premiums prior to ACA. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion prompted by the law will not only remove millions of low-income Americans from their insurance coverage, by converting the program to so-called "block grants" to the states will effectively eliminate it as an entitlement. The American Hospital Association estimates that during the 2018-2026 period hospital operating costs will increase by $400 billion. And, on top of these and other disturbing statistics, budget conscious legislator point out that, during the next ten years , a suitable replacement for Obamacare will add an estimated $9.7 trillion to the national debt.
Given that the discussion in Washington has turned into a political circus lacking a safety net, communities across the country are attempting to anticipate the consequences of repeal, and are constructing responses. A few weeks ago I became aware of one of these efforts in a community not far from Seattle, Washington. Its key health advocate expressed the group's mindset as follows:
"In a rural county of 33,000 people, I am helping to organize a network of community health advocates. The goal is to support our neighbors in wellness. That means helping people learn about health resources, access care and have a health plan that is adequate and affordable. Two groups are key to this organizing effort: a resource team of individuals with experience in education and care; and an outreach team with representation from a broad base of community and neighborhood organizations. Our aim is to provide basic training and information for as many local groups as possible throughout the county, so that each will have their own community health advocate. Two examples: A volunteer health advocate is available each week at the town food bank, and volunteer community health advocates are serving in congregations to assists individuals who have unmet medical and mental needs. We are reaching out to senior groups, social service programs, voluntary organizations of all kinds, small businesses, parents and student groups, recreational programs and cultural groups.
Since both political parties have an important role to play in our health conversations, I am also interested in how, with the help of the local Republican and Democratic organizations, community health advocates could be made available in every precinct in the county.
Wellbeing is not simply an individual matter. When we are ill we need the support of others. Very few of us can afford to save or bear the cost of care for an accident, a long-term illness or a chronic condition. None of us alone have all the knowledge we need to lead healthy lives. Healing and wholeness involves encouraging relationships with others, the help of family and friends, and the support of the wider community."
The principal organizers of this effort are hard at work developing a structure that will allow them to replicate successes across their county, and ultimately across the country. Perhaps our politicians should stop their ideological grand-standing, and consider elements from attempts designed to offset the anticipated changes people are worried about.
Monday, January 16, 2017
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
On January 6, American intelligence officials published a declassified version of a report on Russian hacking. It concluded that, in 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign aimed at the US presidential election." Their assessment was that the Russian government developed "a clear preference for President-Elect Trump." Trump did not endorse these conclusions, but he did commit to task his administration with "devising a new plan to aggressively combat and stop cyber attacks."
Although the conclusions generated by this intelligence report had been public for many weeks, they were aggressively challenged by the incoming administration. However, most of our allies have been well aware of Kremlin attempts to re-shape anti-Russia, pro-America policy positions. While absorbing condemnation for annexing Crimea, suffering from punishing economic sanctions assessed by a unified European Union, guided and supported by the US, and facing what he considers a stranglehold on Russia's "sphere of influence" by a NATO alliance intent on constructing a missile defense system on its doorstep in Romania and Poland, Vladimir Putin actively, and often openly, strategized to divide and neuter the Western alliance. In a rapidly evolving political landscape, Mr. Putin's multi-level attempt appears to be bearing fruit.
Putin's approach involves the use of, both, pre- and post-Soviet methods. A case in point, reminiscent of cold-war antics, is that of Czech Republic President Milos Zeman. Zeman was Prime Minister from 1998 - 2002. He brought the Czech Republic into the EU, but lost his 2003 presidential bid, and retired. During subsequent years Mr. Zeman was actively courted by Russian operatives. He attempted a comeback in 2013, and won the presidency in an election campaign which, opponents charged, was financed by the Kremlin. Time and influence managed to dramatically change Mr. Zeman's political ideas, converting him from being a dominantly pro-Western and pro-EU politician to one openly favoring Russian interests and opposing the EU. In 2015 he even called for a Czechzit referendum to withdraw from the European Union. (Neil MacFarquhar, "How Russians Pay to Play in Other Countries," New York Times, December 30, 2016.)
Post Soviet infiltration methods include directly, and openly, financing political parties sympathetic to the Russian cause. In 2014, France's "National Front" received a $10.6 million loan from the Russian controlled First Czech Russian National Bank to help support its presidential campaign. This was said to be the first installment of a $42 million dollar loan. NF founder Jean-Marie Le Pen received a $2.65 million loan from a Cyprus based bank owned by a former KGB agent. Hungary secured a $10.8 billion Russian investment to finance expansion of a nuclear power plant that produces 40% of the country's electricity. Political observers suggest that this was not just a financial transaction. It appears to have been intended to buy influence, and pump money into the Hungarian economy in advance of the 2018 election campaign of pro-Russia, Eurosceptic, populist President Viktor Orban. Other instances of Russian financial support of right-wing opposition parties are widely suspected, but scarcely admitted.
It is clear that not all efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity emanate from Moscow. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values "who has challenged US influence and the idea of "Europe" in a way that mirrors its own convictions." (Alina Polyakova, "Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe's Far Right," World Affairs, September/ October 2014.) On the political left many of the insurgents are attracted to Russia's antipathy towards globalization and its challenge to the US dominated international capitalist order. ("Putin's Friends in Europe," European Council on Foreign Affairs, October 19, 2016.) "National Front" leader Marine Le Pen refers to Putin as someone who "does what is good for Russia and the Russians." Nigel Farage of the "UK Independence Party" goes a step further describing Putin as "a brilliant strategist who can outwit the West." Of all world leaders he admires Putin the most. Le Pen considers the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea "American meddling in European affairs." She is not alone. Francois Fillon, the center-right candidate who will likely compete with her for the French presidency this coming May, argues for rapprochement with Russia as well. He opposes continuing the sanctions. Given that the EU requires unanimity among all its members if it wants to renew these when they expire next June, chances are excellent that Putin's courting of Europe' populist fringe is paying dividends.
It appears unlikely that the US will continue to take the lead in countering Russia's influence peddling. President-Elect Trump, Putin's favorite candidate, has openly supported the Russian leader. He characterized Putin's New York Times op-ed in 2013, ripping into the notion of American exceptionalism, as "a masterpiece." He denied that Putin assassinated opponents, saying that he "had not seen that. However,, if he did, that could be forgiven. At least, he is a leader." He celebrated Brexit, denounced NATO, and continues to insist that the Russians did not attempt to influence our 2016 election. One can only hope that, once he ascends to the White House, he will recognize that Mr. Putin's overtures are not designed to be benevolent. They are intended to change the political landscape in Russia's favor.
Although the conclusions generated by this intelligence report had been public for many weeks, they were aggressively challenged by the incoming administration. However, most of our allies have been well aware of Kremlin attempts to re-shape anti-Russia, pro-America policy positions. While absorbing condemnation for annexing Crimea, suffering from punishing economic sanctions assessed by a unified European Union, guided and supported by the US, and facing what he considers a stranglehold on Russia's "sphere of influence" by a NATO alliance intent on constructing a missile defense system on its doorstep in Romania and Poland, Vladimir Putin actively, and often openly, strategized to divide and neuter the Western alliance. In a rapidly evolving political landscape, Mr. Putin's multi-level attempt appears to be bearing fruit.
Putin's approach involves the use of, both, pre- and post-Soviet methods. A case in point, reminiscent of cold-war antics, is that of Czech Republic President Milos Zeman. Zeman was Prime Minister from 1998 - 2002. He brought the Czech Republic into the EU, but lost his 2003 presidential bid, and retired. During subsequent years Mr. Zeman was actively courted by Russian operatives. He attempted a comeback in 2013, and won the presidency in an election campaign which, opponents charged, was financed by the Kremlin. Time and influence managed to dramatically change Mr. Zeman's political ideas, converting him from being a dominantly pro-Western and pro-EU politician to one openly favoring Russian interests and opposing the EU. In 2015 he even called for a Czechzit referendum to withdraw from the European Union. (Neil MacFarquhar, "How Russians Pay to Play in Other Countries," New York Times, December 30, 2016.)
Post Soviet infiltration methods include directly, and openly, financing political parties sympathetic to the Russian cause. In 2014, France's "National Front" received a $10.6 million loan from the Russian controlled First Czech Russian National Bank to help support its presidential campaign. This was said to be the first installment of a $42 million dollar loan. NF founder Jean-Marie Le Pen received a $2.65 million loan from a Cyprus based bank owned by a former KGB agent. Hungary secured a $10.8 billion Russian investment to finance expansion of a nuclear power plant that produces 40% of the country's electricity. Political observers suggest that this was not just a financial transaction. It appears to have been intended to buy influence, and pump money into the Hungarian economy in advance of the 2018 election campaign of pro-Russia, Eurosceptic, populist President Viktor Orban. Other instances of Russian financial support of right-wing opposition parties are widely suspected, but scarcely admitted.
It is clear that not all efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity emanate from Moscow. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values "who has challenged US influence and the idea of "Europe" in a way that mirrors its own convictions." (Alina Polyakova, "Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe's Far Right," World Affairs, September/ October 2014.) On the political left many of the insurgents are attracted to Russia's antipathy towards globalization and its challenge to the US dominated international capitalist order. ("Putin's Friends in Europe," European Council on Foreign Affairs, October 19, 2016.) "National Front" leader Marine Le Pen refers to Putin as someone who "does what is good for Russia and the Russians." Nigel Farage of the "UK Independence Party" goes a step further describing Putin as "a brilliant strategist who can outwit the West." Of all world leaders he admires Putin the most. Le Pen considers the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea "American meddling in European affairs." She is not alone. Francois Fillon, the center-right candidate who will likely compete with her for the French presidency this coming May, argues for rapprochement with Russia as well. He opposes continuing the sanctions. Given that the EU requires unanimity among all its members if it wants to renew these when they expire next June, chances are excellent that Putin's courting of Europe' populist fringe is paying dividends.
It appears unlikely that the US will continue to take the lead in countering Russia's influence peddling. President-Elect Trump, Putin's favorite candidate, has openly supported the Russian leader. He characterized Putin's New York Times op-ed in 2013, ripping into the notion of American exceptionalism, as "a masterpiece." He denied that Putin assassinated opponents, saying that he "had not seen that. However,, if he did, that could be forgiven. At least, he is a leader." He celebrated Brexit, denounced NATO, and continues to insist that the Russians did not attempt to influence our 2016 election. One can only hope that, once he ascends to the White House, he will recognize that Mr. Putin's overtures are not designed to be benevolent. They are intended to change the political landscape in Russia's favor.
Monday, January 2, 2017
WILL EUROPE'S DISINTEGRATION ACCELERATE IN 2017?
During the Summer of 1971 I spent three months in Western Europe interviewing politicians and labor leaders as part of a research project designed to evaluate the level of opposition to the concept and implementation of the European integration process, which, at the time, was still in its infancy. Some were entirely opposed to the idea of giving up national independence and identity, others were concerned that the process was not taking place fast enough. On balance, the objective of creating a European Union was accepted as inevitably necessary to prevent a recurrence of the wars that wrecked the European continent throughout history.
That was 45 years ago. The initial alliance was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, and included Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, and would not be expanded until shortly after I spent my time there. The U.K., Ireland and Denmark joined January 1, 1973, and during subsequent decades the European Union expanded to include 28 member states. The optimistically anticipated inevitability of progress towards an ever-intensifying union did not materialize as smoothly as expected, however. The Schengen Agreements, which eliminated internal border checks and allowed free movement throughout the E.U., signed in 1985 and effective 1995, still suggested significant unanimity, even though the U.K., Ireland, and a few Eastern European members did not sign on. The 1999 roll-out of the Euro, intended to become the official currency of the Union, only attracted 19 members. But the big challenge came in 2004 when the European Parliament attempted to pass a treaty that would have established a constitution for Europe. This constitution was designed to replace existing treaties with a single document, and, among other things, allow for qualified majority voting to replace henceforth mandated unanimity requirements. But French and Dutch voters, in a referendum, voted against adoption, and killed the proposal.
One could argue over why the progression towards the establishment of a unified European state slowed, came to a halt, and regressed. Expansion may have been too great and too fast. New members were likely seduced by anticipated benefits of economic integration, but less inclined to relinquish much of their political independence. The rule that all states had to agree before new policies could be adopted stymied progress. More recently, however, several other significant issues accelerated the disintegration of what, up to then, had grown into one of the most important economic and political powers in the world. The 2008 recession identified a debt crisis in a number of, mostly Southern European, countries, placing significant stress on the Euro-Zone, and illuminating systemic problems within the organization. The overwhelming flood of migrants coming in from the Middle-East and Northern Africa put the continued desirability of the Schengen Agreements to the test, while strengthening nationalist and populist political movements in many member countries. The politicization of these influences created a crisis within the organization, which, in 2017, may well accelerate its disintegration.
In June of 2016 the U.K. voted to leave the Union. In January the British Supreme Court will deliver their verdict on whether Prime Minister Theresa May can use the "royal prerogative" and begin Brexit negotiations with the E.U. without approval of Parliament. If she is not allowed to, members could actually vote against the onset of negotiations and block exit from the Union. In March, in a general election, Dutch voters are expected to give Geert Wilders' anti-E.U., anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Party For Freedom a majority in its House of Representatives. If he succeeds, the Dutch may also be asked to vote to leave the E.U.. France's presidential election is scheduled for April 23 (primary) and May 7 (general). Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, has a real chance of taking over the country's presidency. If she does, she has promised to hold a referendum on a French exit (Frexit). Germany holds its general election sometime between late Summer and early Fall. The nationalist AfD (Alternative for Germany), anti-E.U., anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party will likely give Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats a run for their money. Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's recent resignation has left the door wide open for Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement in an election that could take place later this year. Greece may be headed towards an election as well, since there are signs that Prime Minister Alexis Tsirpas seems to be positioning himself to defy his government's debt restructuring agreement with the European Central Bank.
And so it goes.
Whether the European Union will survive the populist onslaught remains to be seen. Thus far it survived many of the financial skirmishes resulting from the recession in 2008, even though significant debt related systemic issues remain. The more immediate, political, challenges confronting the organization are concentrated in many of its member states, and can't be resolved within its supranational structure. It is telling that roughly one third of the 751 members of the European Parliament are considered "eurosceptic." High unemployment, coupled with a growing refugee crisis affecting most member states, led to the election of these, essentially anti-E.U., MEPs. The average unemployment rate within the E.U. still approaches 10%, with Greece exceeding 23% and Spain hovering around 19%. These statistics won't diminish voter displeasure. The flood of non-European migrants, which produced a cultural identity crisis in many member states, is giving the political parties these eurosceptic MEPs represent the ammunition they need to advance their agenda. Those need to be dealt with in-country, and those are the ones that can eventually further the disintegration of the European idea. Poland and Hungary, countries which joined the E.U. as recently as 2002 and 2004, are already run by eurosceptic governments. Those are the movements to watch.
The next election for the European Parliament won't take place until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then. For those who don't think this issue is important to us, that Europe is far away, and what happens there won't really affect us, just consider that between the U.S. and the E.U. we transact about $1 trillion in business every year, that together we represent 60% of global GDP, that, strategically, we built the strongest military defense alliance in the world, and, as a bloc, we play a leading role in international relations. Disintegration will only benefit our adversaries. It will severely, negatively, affect our national interest.
That was 45 years ago. The initial alliance was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, and included Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, and would not be expanded until shortly after I spent my time there. The U.K., Ireland and Denmark joined January 1, 1973, and during subsequent decades the European Union expanded to include 28 member states. The optimistically anticipated inevitability of progress towards an ever-intensifying union did not materialize as smoothly as expected, however. The Schengen Agreements, which eliminated internal border checks and allowed free movement throughout the E.U., signed in 1985 and effective 1995, still suggested significant unanimity, even though the U.K., Ireland, and a few Eastern European members did not sign on. The 1999 roll-out of the Euro, intended to become the official currency of the Union, only attracted 19 members. But the big challenge came in 2004 when the European Parliament attempted to pass a treaty that would have established a constitution for Europe. This constitution was designed to replace existing treaties with a single document, and, among other things, allow for qualified majority voting to replace henceforth mandated unanimity requirements. But French and Dutch voters, in a referendum, voted against adoption, and killed the proposal.
One could argue over why the progression towards the establishment of a unified European state slowed, came to a halt, and regressed. Expansion may have been too great and too fast. New members were likely seduced by anticipated benefits of economic integration, but less inclined to relinquish much of their political independence. The rule that all states had to agree before new policies could be adopted stymied progress. More recently, however, several other significant issues accelerated the disintegration of what, up to then, had grown into one of the most important economic and political powers in the world. The 2008 recession identified a debt crisis in a number of, mostly Southern European, countries, placing significant stress on the Euro-Zone, and illuminating systemic problems within the organization. The overwhelming flood of migrants coming in from the Middle-East and Northern Africa put the continued desirability of the Schengen Agreements to the test, while strengthening nationalist and populist political movements in many member countries. The politicization of these influences created a crisis within the organization, which, in 2017, may well accelerate its disintegration.
In June of 2016 the U.K. voted to leave the Union. In January the British Supreme Court will deliver their verdict on whether Prime Minister Theresa May can use the "royal prerogative" and begin Brexit negotiations with the E.U. without approval of Parliament. If she is not allowed to, members could actually vote against the onset of negotiations and block exit from the Union. In March, in a general election, Dutch voters are expected to give Geert Wilders' anti-E.U., anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Party For Freedom a majority in its House of Representatives. If he succeeds, the Dutch may also be asked to vote to leave the E.U.. France's presidential election is scheduled for April 23 (primary) and May 7 (general). Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, has a real chance of taking over the country's presidency. If she does, she has promised to hold a referendum on a French exit (Frexit). Germany holds its general election sometime between late Summer and early Fall. The nationalist AfD (Alternative for Germany), anti-E.U., anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party will likely give Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats a run for their money. Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's recent resignation has left the door wide open for Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement in an election that could take place later this year. Greece may be headed towards an election as well, since there are signs that Prime Minister Alexis Tsirpas seems to be positioning himself to defy his government's debt restructuring agreement with the European Central Bank.
And so it goes.
Whether the European Union will survive the populist onslaught remains to be seen. Thus far it survived many of the financial skirmishes resulting from the recession in 2008, even though significant debt related systemic issues remain. The more immediate, political, challenges confronting the organization are concentrated in many of its member states, and can't be resolved within its supranational structure. It is telling that roughly one third of the 751 members of the European Parliament are considered "eurosceptic." High unemployment, coupled with a growing refugee crisis affecting most member states, led to the election of these, essentially anti-E.U., MEPs. The average unemployment rate within the E.U. still approaches 10%, with Greece exceeding 23% and Spain hovering around 19%. These statistics won't diminish voter displeasure. The flood of non-European migrants, which produced a cultural identity crisis in many member states, is giving the political parties these eurosceptic MEPs represent the ammunition they need to advance their agenda. Those need to be dealt with in-country, and those are the ones that can eventually further the disintegration of the European idea. Poland and Hungary, countries which joined the E.U. as recently as 2002 and 2004, are already run by eurosceptic governments. Those are the movements to watch.
The next election for the European Parliament won't take place until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then. For those who don't think this issue is important to us, that Europe is far away, and what happens there won't really affect us, just consider that between the U.S. and the E.U. we transact about $1 trillion in business every year, that together we represent 60% of global GDP, that, strategically, we built the strongest military defense alliance in the world, and, as a bloc, we play a leading role in international relations. Disintegration will only benefit our adversaries. It will severely, negatively, affect our national interest.
Monday, December 19, 2016
EMBRACING NOSTALGIA ALLOWS US TO DECOMPRESS
A few weeks ago, while erecting our Christmas tree, listening to Christmas carols, and inhaling the scent of cookies baking in the oven, I was overcome by an overwhelming sense of nostalgia. With everything our minds have been preoccupied with this past year, and with all the challenging issues at home and abroad that will confront us in the coming year, this sensation actually felt tremendously comforting, be it somewhat melancholic. It occurred to me that, perhaps, this is exactly what we as a community and as a nation need right now - enjoy the season, take some time off, and reflect on what has always made us feel safe and comfortable.
While processing this experience I recognized intuitively that in my mind "nostalgia" contains characteristics that are largely positive and beneficial.
The dictionary definition of nostalgia is "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition," sometimes enhanced by a "yearning for the happiness felt in a former place, time or situation." However, for centuries, giving into feelings of nostalgia was considered a sign of weakness.
The word originated from the Greek for "homecoming" and "pain." Throughout most of the 19th Century this sensation was considered a potentially debilitating, and sometimes fatal, medical condition, expressing extreme homesickness. (Melissa Dahl, "The Little-Known Medical History of Homesickness," February, 2016). A Swiss medical student, Johannes Hofer, first defined nostalgia in a dissertation he wrote in 1688. He defined it as a mental illness, an affliction of those who had left their home, and which struck them as they recalled fond memories. In some cases they were crippled by the sense of longing these memories brought. His research focused on Swiss mercenaries fighting abroad. Consequently, early on, nostalgia was often referred to as the "Swiss disease." The characteristics Hofer identified and discussed were recognized well before he published his dissertation.
During the Thirty Years War - which ran from 1618 to 1648, involving much of central and southern Europe, Spanish soldiers were discharged from service because they suffered so strongly from it that they were no longer capable of fighting. During the early 1700s, Russian troops were often buried alive if they succumbed to the so-called nostalgia virus. And during the U.S. Civil War, soldiers who grew nostalgic for their homes and families were publicly shamed and ridiculed until they got over it. (Debra Kelly, "When Nostalgia Was Considered A Crippling Mental Illness," June 29, 2014).
These days nostalgia is viewed as an independent, and even positive, emotion many people tend to experience frequently. Led by University of Southampton psychologist Constantine Sedikides, scientists focus on its potentially therapeutic aspects. Research suggests that nostalgia can promote psychological health, including counteracting the effects of loneliness and providing us with a greater sense of continuity and meaning to our lives. It seems to help us maintain a sense of who we are, and how we are connected to other people through our relationships. Participation in religious traditions or cultural norms, especially during the Holiday season, helps us do that. (Krystine Batcho, "Why We Feel Nostalgic During The Holidays," New York, Le Moyne College, December 20, 2011).
This past year has been stressful for many of us. The daily bombardment of controversial input, emanating from a brutal election campaign, caused many relationships to become severely frayed. A post-election article in the Boston Globe stated that the mental health of Americans of all persuasions had been seriously challenged. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and other hot line services reported huge surges in calls for help.
As a result of all that we have been confronted with this past year, many of us have experienced the feeling of being disconnected from reality, and acknowledged that somehow we have been separated from some of our friends and family members. The feeling of nostalgia that may overpower us during this time of the year, if we allow ourselves to embrace it, could help us regain a margin of separation from all that befuddles us, while bringing us mentally back to a time when political and social distractions did not get in the way of our sanity. It can help make us feel grounded again, and provide continuity and context to our lives. If we feel we need it, it may even help give us the strength to move on. We will realize that there will be ample time to confront and assess our challenges after the holidays.
Wishing everyone Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Kwanzaa, all of which this year are celebrated around the same time. They provide a fitting spiritual conclusion to a tumultuous year. I am confident that even those of us who don't subscribe to a religious tradition will still be inspired by the spirit of the season, and feel connected to all who surround us.
While processing this experience I recognized intuitively that in my mind "nostalgia" contains characteristics that are largely positive and beneficial.
The dictionary definition of nostalgia is "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition," sometimes enhanced by a "yearning for the happiness felt in a former place, time or situation." However, for centuries, giving into feelings of nostalgia was considered a sign of weakness.
The word originated from the Greek for "homecoming" and "pain." Throughout most of the 19th Century this sensation was considered a potentially debilitating, and sometimes fatal, medical condition, expressing extreme homesickness. (Melissa Dahl, "The Little-Known Medical History of Homesickness," February, 2016). A Swiss medical student, Johannes Hofer, first defined nostalgia in a dissertation he wrote in 1688. He defined it as a mental illness, an affliction of those who had left their home, and which struck them as they recalled fond memories. In some cases they were crippled by the sense of longing these memories brought. His research focused on Swiss mercenaries fighting abroad. Consequently, early on, nostalgia was often referred to as the "Swiss disease." The characteristics Hofer identified and discussed were recognized well before he published his dissertation.
During the Thirty Years War - which ran from 1618 to 1648, involving much of central and southern Europe, Spanish soldiers were discharged from service because they suffered so strongly from it that they were no longer capable of fighting. During the early 1700s, Russian troops were often buried alive if they succumbed to the so-called nostalgia virus. And during the U.S. Civil War, soldiers who grew nostalgic for their homes and families were publicly shamed and ridiculed until they got over it. (Debra Kelly, "When Nostalgia Was Considered A Crippling Mental Illness," June 29, 2014).
These days nostalgia is viewed as an independent, and even positive, emotion many people tend to experience frequently. Led by University of Southampton psychologist Constantine Sedikides, scientists focus on its potentially therapeutic aspects. Research suggests that nostalgia can promote psychological health, including counteracting the effects of loneliness and providing us with a greater sense of continuity and meaning to our lives. It seems to help us maintain a sense of who we are, and how we are connected to other people through our relationships. Participation in religious traditions or cultural norms, especially during the Holiday season, helps us do that. (Krystine Batcho, "Why We Feel Nostalgic During The Holidays," New York, Le Moyne College, December 20, 2011).
This past year has been stressful for many of us. The daily bombardment of controversial input, emanating from a brutal election campaign, caused many relationships to become severely frayed. A post-election article in the Boston Globe stated that the mental health of Americans of all persuasions had been seriously challenged. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and other hot line services reported huge surges in calls for help.
As a result of all that we have been confronted with this past year, many of us have experienced the feeling of being disconnected from reality, and acknowledged that somehow we have been separated from some of our friends and family members. The feeling of nostalgia that may overpower us during this time of the year, if we allow ourselves to embrace it, could help us regain a margin of separation from all that befuddles us, while bringing us mentally back to a time when political and social distractions did not get in the way of our sanity. It can help make us feel grounded again, and provide continuity and context to our lives. If we feel we need it, it may even help give us the strength to move on. We will realize that there will be ample time to confront and assess our challenges after the holidays.
Wishing everyone Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Kwanzaa, all of which this year are celebrated around the same time. They provide a fitting spiritual conclusion to a tumultuous year. I am confident that even those of us who don't subscribe to a religious tradition will still be inspired by the spirit of the season, and feel connected to all who surround us.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
ANXIETY AND XENOPHOBIA IN POST- ELECTION AMERICA
One of the troublesome aftermaths of a nationalist electoral victory continues to be that the victors, especially those who used to occupy the fringes of society, now feel emancipated and entitled to act on their nativist impulses and begin to attack minorities, immigrants, and basically anyone they don't like. Back in June, when many voters in the U.K., upset over what they believed was an unrestricted inflow of migrants, voted to leave the E.U., racist abuse increased almost 100% overnight. Much of this abuse was directed at Polish immigrants, many of whom had been British citizens for generations. Pamphleteers spread the word that now that the U.K. was leaving the E.U., its citizens no longer needed to tolerate "Polish varmint." Kids in school were told that they would be deported. Casual racism spread unchallenged.
Fast forward to our own post-election period. Two days after the election results were in, USA Today headlined: "Rise in racists acts follow elections." Educators were quoted suggesting that feelings that had festered for years in private were now coming into the open. A swastika was scrawled on a softball field dug-out in Wellsville, N.Y., accompanied by the slogan: "Make America White Again." In Maple Gove, Minn, messages on a high school bathroom wall included: "#gobacktoafrica," and #whitesonly." White students in De Witt, Mich. formed a physical wall of students to block Latino kids from entering school. A Muslin woman had a knife pulled on her in a bus by a Trump supporter. Several California Mosques received threatening letters stating: "Trump will do what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews." And a personal friend, who immigrated many years ago, who built a successful business, and who employs many in our community, has been confronted by people coming into her business telling her in no uncertain terms: "Go home!"
The Southern Poverty Law Center tracked more than 80 reported hate crime and racist incidents in California between Nov. 9 and 16, the most of any state. The pattern is not just disturbing, it is scary.
Whether President-Elect Donald Trump can stem this tide is questionable. After all, candidate Trump provided ample ammunition for these hate groups. In November last year, on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program, Trump vowed to build a "deportation force" and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country. That same month Trump confirmed that he would "absolutely require Muslims to register in a data-base." One of his surrogates, Carl Higbie, representing the biggest Super-Pac supporting candidate Trump, reiterated this intent, and suggested that the Japanese internment camps could serve as legal precedent for establishing a Muslim registry. During a subsequent interview on "Meet the Press," incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared to confirm this when he stated that he "would not rule anything out."
The selection of Stephen Bannon as President Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor has dampened the hopes of many that Mr. Trump's transition to President-Elect and President would somehow prompt a softening of the populist and nativist positions he ran on when he was still a mere candidate for the office. Only two years ago, in an email to supporters, Bannon wrote: "Let the grassroots turn on the hate, because that's the only thing that will make them do their duty." In his role as (former) Executive Chairman of the Breitbart New, Bannon is known for statements like: 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy," calling Bill Kristol - editor of the Weekly Standard - a Republican spoiler and a renegade Jew," claiming that Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, is connected to a terrorist conspiracy, and calling progressive women "a bunch of dykes."
People like Richard Spencer, leader of the so-called "alt-right" movement, a distinctly white supremacist organization, for which, according to Mr. Bannon, the Breitbart News provides a platform, rejoiced at the appointment. During a Nov. 19 meeting in Washington D.C., Mr. Spencer suggested that the "alt-right" could serve as "an intellectual vanguard" that would complete Trump. He hoped that they could be "the ones who are out front, and who are thinking about things that he (Trump) hasn't grasped yet." He ended his speech, appropriately, with the Nazi salute: "Hail Trump!"
Six days after the election, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared that the administration should push Congress to organize a new House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to the former Speaker, who has not been shy about his desire to become part of the new administration: "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis ..... We're going to presently have to take similar steps here in regards to Muslims."
The anxiety, and the fear induced by xenophobia permeating through much of, non white, post-election society is palpable. This was aptly articulated when a member of the cast of "Hamilton," actor Brandon Dixon, asked Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, after he attended a performance, to listen to this message: "We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and to work on behalf of all of us - all of us!
Enough said.
Fast forward to our own post-election period. Two days after the election results were in, USA Today headlined: "Rise in racists acts follow elections." Educators were quoted suggesting that feelings that had festered for years in private were now coming into the open. A swastika was scrawled on a softball field dug-out in Wellsville, N.Y., accompanied by the slogan: "Make America White Again." In Maple Gove, Minn, messages on a high school bathroom wall included: "#gobacktoafrica," and #whitesonly." White students in De Witt, Mich. formed a physical wall of students to block Latino kids from entering school. A Muslin woman had a knife pulled on her in a bus by a Trump supporter. Several California Mosques received threatening letters stating: "Trump will do what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews." And a personal friend, who immigrated many years ago, who built a successful business, and who employs many in our community, has been confronted by people coming into her business telling her in no uncertain terms: "Go home!"
The Southern Poverty Law Center tracked more than 80 reported hate crime and racist incidents in California between Nov. 9 and 16, the most of any state. The pattern is not just disturbing, it is scary.
Whether President-Elect Donald Trump can stem this tide is questionable. After all, candidate Trump provided ample ammunition for these hate groups. In November last year, on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program, Trump vowed to build a "deportation force" and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country. That same month Trump confirmed that he would "absolutely require Muslims to register in a data-base." One of his surrogates, Carl Higbie, representing the biggest Super-Pac supporting candidate Trump, reiterated this intent, and suggested that the Japanese internment camps could serve as legal precedent for establishing a Muslim registry. During a subsequent interview on "Meet the Press," incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared to confirm this when he stated that he "would not rule anything out."
The selection of Stephen Bannon as President Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor has dampened the hopes of many that Mr. Trump's transition to President-Elect and President would somehow prompt a softening of the populist and nativist positions he ran on when he was still a mere candidate for the office. Only two years ago, in an email to supporters, Bannon wrote: "Let the grassroots turn on the hate, because that's the only thing that will make them do their duty." In his role as (former) Executive Chairman of the Breitbart New, Bannon is known for statements like: 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy," calling Bill Kristol - editor of the Weekly Standard - a Republican spoiler and a renegade Jew," claiming that Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, is connected to a terrorist conspiracy, and calling progressive women "a bunch of dykes."
People like Richard Spencer, leader of the so-called "alt-right" movement, a distinctly white supremacist organization, for which, according to Mr. Bannon, the Breitbart News provides a platform, rejoiced at the appointment. During a Nov. 19 meeting in Washington D.C., Mr. Spencer suggested that the "alt-right" could serve as "an intellectual vanguard" that would complete Trump. He hoped that they could be "the ones who are out front, and who are thinking about things that he (Trump) hasn't grasped yet." He ended his speech, appropriately, with the Nazi salute: "Hail Trump!"
Six days after the election, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared that the administration should push Congress to organize a new House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to the former Speaker, who has not been shy about his desire to become part of the new administration: "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis ..... We're going to presently have to take similar steps here in regards to Muslims."
The anxiety, and the fear induced by xenophobia permeating through much of, non white, post-election society is palpable. This was aptly articulated when a member of the cast of "Hamilton," actor Brandon Dixon, asked Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, after he attended a performance, to listen to this message: "We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and to work on behalf of all of us - all of us!
Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)