The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The term did not exist until it was first coined in 1944 by Ralph Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, seeking to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the extermination of European Jews.
While this definition has generally been accepted, countries have traditionally been reluctant to recognize genocidal activity outside of their own boundaries. This, unfortunately, has most often led to genocidal extermination being allowed to continue under cover of the excuse of "national sovereignty." (It took the U.S. 40 years, from 1948 to 1968, to finally ratify the U.N. Convention.) Consequently, we continue to see genocides happen right before our eyes, and we will do nothing about them.
Case in point - less than 9,000 miles from Washington D.C., Myanmar soldiers are burning Rohingya infants alive, gang-raping teenagers, shooting villagers fleeing their homes, and wiping out entire villages, while the world continues to contemplate if it should define what is taking place as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just an internal military action. Since late August, during a timespan of just eight weeks, Myanmar's military killed thousands, and forced 600,000 surviving Rohingya Muslims, 58% of which are children who witnessed atrocities no child should ever see, to flee to Bangladesh.
The sentiment of most observers is that, if history is a guide, the international community will abet the situation. Even though U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that it is "an absolute priority" to stop all violence against Myanmar Rohingya Muslims, and a simultaneously approved statement issued by the Security Council condemning the violence, the organization has stopped well short of identifying the activity as genocide. If it had, the U.N. would have been legally bound to intervene, which is why most member states will be reluctant to initiate such a move. Myanmar's State Controller Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate, while facing universal criticism for not vocally objecting to the violence, was never even confronted with the subject when she attended the ASEAN Summit in Manila this past week.
This callously predictable non-response has permeated similar unresponsive reactions to previous equally horrific events throughout history.
During and immediately following WWI, Turkey killed, deported and starved to death as many as 1.8 million Armenians. Modern Turks generally refuse to acknowledge that what happened to have been genocide. However, most scholars consider it to have been an orchestrated effort at exterminating an unwanted ethnic group that had lived within the borders of the crumbling Ottoman Empire for centuries. The world just watched.
From 1939 to 1945, during the Holocaust, when the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people, 6 million of which were Jews, the world looked the other way. There was ample evidence about what was taking place. However, the information remained classified, and reports were either denied or catalogued as "unconfirmed," while millions were literally exterminated.
In 1975, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, which wanted to establish a "Communist utopia," annihilated two million people (20 percent of the population) who were considered "enemies of the state." We all knew, but we declined to interfere.
In January 1994 the leader of the U.N. troops in Rwanda was warned that a plan for genocide was in place. His intent to act was nixed by his superiors in the U.N., and most of the 25,000 peace keeping troops were withdrawn from the country. The U.S. government avoided admitting that the subsequent massacre constituted genocide. We argued that we had no business involving ourselves in the internal conflict of another country. Within a 100-day period the Hutu majority killed an estimated one million Tutsis, 70 percent of its ethnic group and 20 percent of Rwanda's population.
Other examples are plentiful. The world shamefully watches, head in sand, claiming "not our problem."
Gregory Stanton. president of Genocide Watch, lists eight stages of genocide: Classification (us against them); Symbolization (attaching labels); Dehumanization (denying the humanity of the other group); Organization (training and planning for genocidal killings); Polarization (involving propaganda and passing new, discriminatory legislation); Preparation (identifying the victims); Extermination (the killing begins); and Denial (it's the victims' fault, hide the bodies). At each stage preventive measures could have stopped the process.
Genocide is the world's worst intentional human rights problem. But it is different from other problems, and it requires different solutions. Because genocide is almost always carried out by a country's own military and police forces, the usual national focus on law and order cannot stop it. International intervention is usually required. However, because the world lacks an international rapid response force, and because the U.N. has so far either been paralyzed or unwilling to act, genocide continues to go unchecked.
With genocide and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar continuing unabated, we should keep in mind that the numbers that are being reported from the area are not just statistics, they refer to real people.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Saturday, November 11, 2017
THE POLITICS OF EMPATHY
Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." The term has been used in conjunction with "sympathy" and "compassion," and has surfaced occasionally and conceptually during political campaigns. While "sympathy" emphasizes the feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune, "compassion' refers to "sympathy" accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. A series of studies have claimed to show that conservatives score lower on "empathy" than liberals. Republicans contest these findings, arguing that such studies tend to favor Democratic principles of compassion and care over Republican philosophies of autonomy and self help. (Mark Honigsbaum, The History of Emotions Blog, Dec. 3, 2012).
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE, A LETHAL COMBINATION
A little more than two years ago I published a letter chastising Congressional opponents agitating against ratification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. The political push-back reached a fevered pitch, even bringing Israel's prime minister to Washington to argue against it before Congress. My take on the conversation back then was that ignorance permeated the dialogue. Steadily increasing sanctions dating back to 1979, enhanced in 2006, after which they were also supported by Russia and China, had not resulted in slowing down Iran's nuclear enrichment program. In fact, by 2015 Iran was only 6 months away from developing the capability to field a nuclear weapon. Sanctions had already begun to unravel. This was a multi-lateral agreement. Our participation was not essential, although it did give the arrangement significantly greater emphasis.
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
WILL SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS LEAD TO FRAGMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
The "Peace of Westphalia," which was concluded in 1648, ended the 30 years' war fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Europe, and the 80 years' war between Spain and the Dutch Republic. This historic event was said to have created a basis for the concept of national self determination.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
IMMIGRATION - ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE OR POLITICAL HOT POTATO?
We disagree a lot in this country. A spirited, passionate, boisterous debate is the underpinning of our political system. One fact most of us won't disagree about, however, is that America was built by immigrants. That conviction has been part of our DNA from the very beginning. Tedious legal arguments aside, unless you are a Native American, your ancestors came into this country as immigrants. From 1776 to 2006 we took in an estimated 72 million legal immigrants, about 13% of all who ever lived here. By 2006 12 million lawful permanent immigrant residents inhabited our country. Another 12 million had already become naturalized citizens. (The Globalist, Nov. 29, 2006). On a typical day we process 110,000 foreigners coming into the country, 3,100 receive migrant visas, while 1,500 enter illegally - and there is the rub. Unauthorized migration has been our main policy concern, although the vetting of migrants from target countries for potential terrorist ties has recently also become a significant security focus.
From colonial times onward immigrants arrived in waves. Our first settlers came during the early 1600s in search of religious freedom. Persecuted groups like the Pilgrims established a colony in Plymouth, and between 1630 and 1640 some 20,000 Puritans settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As early as 1619 20 immigrants from West Africa, who arrived against their will, were forced into indentured servitude as slaves. Their number sadly ballooned to 700,000 by 1790.
During the period from 1776 to 1819 we accepted around 6,500 immigrants each year. From 1820 to 1879 - during the "continental expansion" period, this number grew to an annual average of 162,000. And from 1880 to 1924, during the Industrial Revolution, these numbers increased again, to 584,000 per year, while dropping to approximately 178,00 after 1925. (Compiled by Vernon Briggs, Cornell University).
Throughout our brief history anti-immigrant sentiment, mostly prompted by fear and/or ignorance, surfaced periodically. The concerns expressed usually included perceived affects on our economy, negative environmental impacts from accelerated population growth, increased crime rates, and changes to traditional identities and values. (Marisa Abrajano, "White Backlash: Immigration, Race and American Politics," Princeton University Press, 2015). More specifically, these arguments have been, and still are, articulated in terms of "national identity," the fear of losing the identity of the native population by an infusion of destructive traditions, culture, language and politics; "isolation," the fear that immigrants may isolate into their own communities, leading to the development of ghettos or parallel societies, rather than assimilating into the native culture; and an increase in competition for scarce resources, like social welfare systems, housing, education, etc. Over the years, opposition to immigration, for whatever reason, led politicians to make policy adjustments to existing laws.
President John Adams signed the Naturalization Act in 1798, which increased the period of residency required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship to 14 years. The Alien Friend Act and the Alien Enemies Act accompanying this legislation gave the president the power to deport any foreigner if he considered such person dangerous to the country. During the mid 19th century anti-immigration fervor turned decidedly anti-Catholic, culminating into the "Know-Nothing" Party. The Roman Catholic church had become the single largest denomination in the U.S., primarily on the strength of immigration from Ireland and Germany. The first significant law restricting immigration into the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, passed by Congress and signed by President Chester Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration. Chinese laborers had entered the country during the 1850s, first working in gold mines, and subsequently in agricultural enterprises and factories. They were particularly instrumental in building railroads in the American west. As they became more successful, resentment by other workers increased, which eventually prompted Congress to act. A 1917 law required immigrants over 16 years old to pass a literacy test. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system, favoring immigrants from Western Europe, and prohibiting migrants from Asia. The Immigration Act of 1965 did away with quotas, and allowed sponsoring relatives. Current immigration patterns favor Latin America and Asia.
A plaque installed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty bears the text of a poem written by Emma Lazarus, which reads in part: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses yearning to be free." These words have long been favored sentimentally by many interested in immigration and immigration policy. However, they probably had limited applicability, even when written in 1883. Immigration has always served an economic purpose. Whether we are talking about colonial development, indentured servitude, Chinese railroad workers, factory workers, or agricultural laborers harvesting our crops, legally or not, we, as a country, would not have had the economic success we are so eager to flaunt without this labor pool. If immigration had ceased with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our population would now probably only be somewhere around 125 million. Immigration fuels the economy. Immigrants increase our productive capacity and raise GDP. "Immigration surplus" has been estimated to amount to $36 to $72 billion per year. (Pia Orrenius, "Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs," George W. Bush Institute, 2016). The current debate about eliminating the DACA program, the proposed construction of a demonstrably ineffective wall on our Southern border, or scaling back the H-1B Visa program, limiting employment of highly skilled foreign workers, could have a damaging effect on our economy. Deporting the 800,000 plus "dreamers" enrolled in the DACA program alone could cost our economy more than $400 billion. (John Schoen, CNBC, Sept. 5, 2017).
Throughout our history anti-immigrant sentiment, articulated and marshaled by populist politicians exploiting fear and ignorance, have run counter to rational economic policies. As always, simplicity sells, complexity breeds vulnerability. We should compel Congress to apply basic economic principles when developing policies that affect us all.
From colonial times onward immigrants arrived in waves. Our first settlers came during the early 1600s in search of religious freedom. Persecuted groups like the Pilgrims established a colony in Plymouth, and between 1630 and 1640 some 20,000 Puritans settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As early as 1619 20 immigrants from West Africa, who arrived against their will, were forced into indentured servitude as slaves. Their number sadly ballooned to 700,000 by 1790.
During the period from 1776 to 1819 we accepted around 6,500 immigrants each year. From 1820 to 1879 - during the "continental expansion" period, this number grew to an annual average of 162,000. And from 1880 to 1924, during the Industrial Revolution, these numbers increased again, to 584,000 per year, while dropping to approximately 178,00 after 1925. (Compiled by Vernon Briggs, Cornell University).
Throughout our brief history anti-immigrant sentiment, mostly prompted by fear and/or ignorance, surfaced periodically. The concerns expressed usually included perceived affects on our economy, negative environmental impacts from accelerated population growth, increased crime rates, and changes to traditional identities and values. (Marisa Abrajano, "White Backlash: Immigration, Race and American Politics," Princeton University Press, 2015). More specifically, these arguments have been, and still are, articulated in terms of "national identity," the fear of losing the identity of the native population by an infusion of destructive traditions, culture, language and politics; "isolation," the fear that immigrants may isolate into their own communities, leading to the development of ghettos or parallel societies, rather than assimilating into the native culture; and an increase in competition for scarce resources, like social welfare systems, housing, education, etc. Over the years, opposition to immigration, for whatever reason, led politicians to make policy adjustments to existing laws.
President John Adams signed the Naturalization Act in 1798, which increased the period of residency required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship to 14 years. The Alien Friend Act and the Alien Enemies Act accompanying this legislation gave the president the power to deport any foreigner if he considered such person dangerous to the country. During the mid 19th century anti-immigration fervor turned decidedly anti-Catholic, culminating into the "Know-Nothing" Party. The Roman Catholic church had become the single largest denomination in the U.S., primarily on the strength of immigration from Ireland and Germany. The first significant law restricting immigration into the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, passed by Congress and signed by President Chester Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration. Chinese laborers had entered the country during the 1850s, first working in gold mines, and subsequently in agricultural enterprises and factories. They were particularly instrumental in building railroads in the American west. As they became more successful, resentment by other workers increased, which eventually prompted Congress to act. A 1917 law required immigrants over 16 years old to pass a literacy test. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system, favoring immigrants from Western Europe, and prohibiting migrants from Asia. The Immigration Act of 1965 did away with quotas, and allowed sponsoring relatives. Current immigration patterns favor Latin America and Asia.
A plaque installed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty bears the text of a poem written by Emma Lazarus, which reads in part: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses yearning to be free." These words have long been favored sentimentally by many interested in immigration and immigration policy. However, they probably had limited applicability, even when written in 1883. Immigration has always served an economic purpose. Whether we are talking about colonial development, indentured servitude, Chinese railroad workers, factory workers, or agricultural laborers harvesting our crops, legally or not, we, as a country, would not have had the economic success we are so eager to flaunt without this labor pool. If immigration had ceased with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our population would now probably only be somewhere around 125 million. Immigration fuels the economy. Immigrants increase our productive capacity and raise GDP. "Immigration surplus" has been estimated to amount to $36 to $72 billion per year. (Pia Orrenius, "Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs," George W. Bush Institute, 2016). The current debate about eliminating the DACA program, the proposed construction of a demonstrably ineffective wall on our Southern border, or scaling back the H-1B Visa program, limiting employment of highly skilled foreign workers, could have a damaging effect on our economy. Deporting the 800,000 plus "dreamers" enrolled in the DACA program alone could cost our economy more than $400 billion. (John Schoen, CNBC, Sept. 5, 2017).
Throughout our history anti-immigrant sentiment, articulated and marshaled by populist politicians exploiting fear and ignorance, have run counter to rational economic policies. As always, simplicity sells, complexity breeds vulnerability. We should compel Congress to apply basic economic principles when developing policies that affect us all.
Monday, September 18, 2017
COMFORTABLE OR NOT, IT'S CALLED "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
Charlottesville, Va., home to the University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson's mountain-top plantation Monticello, underwent a significant image change as a result of the violent demonstrations it encountered during the weekend of Aug. 11-13. One important outcome of the overt hatred on display that weekend was that many of us began to revisit the concept of "freedom of speech." Are white nationalists, the KKK, neo-Nazis and others protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution when they openly exhibit their hatred of people solely because of their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender? The issue surfaced well before "Charlottesville, when it came up as a result of the disturbances following UC Berkeley abruptly cancelling a planned February speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. As a consequence of the negative press the university received, and the cumulative pressure generated nationally by recent events, Cal Chancellor Carol Christ decided to proclaim this school year a "free speech" year.
The First Amendment to our Constitution, officially adopted Dec. 15, 1791, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Predictably, legal challenges delineating specifically what these rights did and did not include proliferated. Multiple courts concluded that the amendment included concepts like: The right not to speak - specifically the right not to salute the flag (West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette - 1943); using certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v California - 1971); and engaging in symbolic speech, like burning the flag in protest (Texas v Johnson -1989). Excluded was the right to incite actions that would harm others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (Schenck v United States - 1919).
In "Matai v Tami" (2017), Justice Samuel Alito, writing in support of a unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate."
Citing legal precedent, the ACLU, generally left-leaning, sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the "Unite the Right" rally to happen downtown. After numerous participants arrived carrying loaded firearms the organization appeared to retrench retroactively, publicly expressing that "firearms and free speech don't mix." However, legally, the relationship between the First and Second Amendment is complicated, and the issue was not pursued.
Had the demonstration taken place in countries like Germany, France, Denmark, The Netherlands and others, chances are that participants would have been fined or jailed. Many countries have laws forbidding hate speech. We don't, even though there have been times in our history where such legislation was actively pursued. An early assault on free speech came from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which permitted prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what were deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or the government. The acts were passed by a Federalist Congress, signed by President John Adams, and designed to limit the power of the opposition Republican Party. Enforcement ended after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800.
Another attempt was made in 1918 when Congress passed a different Sedition Act, essentially consisting of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, prohibiting many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of our government or our flag." It was intended to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of US enemies during wartime. Some 1,500 prosecutions were carried out, resulting in more that 1,000 convictions (Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti; The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991). The amendments were repealed in 1921. The Espionage Act was left intact.
While we correctly assert that the opinions expressed during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville ran counter to the values we as a country embrace, it would be un-American to deny sympathizers the right to hold these. Justice Alito's opinion in "Matal v Tami" should resonate with all of us. Marches and hate spewing diatribe from white nationalists and Nazis, and, for that matter, Colin Kaepernick protesting racial inequality by kneeling during our national anthem, may make many feel outright uncomfortable. Denying them the right to do so will make all of us less American.
The First Amendment to our Constitution, officially adopted Dec. 15, 1791, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Predictably, legal challenges delineating specifically what these rights did and did not include proliferated. Multiple courts concluded that the amendment included concepts like: The right not to speak - specifically the right not to salute the flag (West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette - 1943); using certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v California - 1971); and engaging in symbolic speech, like burning the flag in protest (Texas v Johnson -1989). Excluded was the right to incite actions that would harm others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (Schenck v United States - 1919).
In "Matai v Tami" (2017), Justice Samuel Alito, writing in support of a unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate."
Citing legal precedent, the ACLU, generally left-leaning, sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the "Unite the Right" rally to happen downtown. After numerous participants arrived carrying loaded firearms the organization appeared to retrench retroactively, publicly expressing that "firearms and free speech don't mix." However, legally, the relationship between the First and Second Amendment is complicated, and the issue was not pursued.
Had the demonstration taken place in countries like Germany, France, Denmark, The Netherlands and others, chances are that participants would have been fined or jailed. Many countries have laws forbidding hate speech. We don't, even though there have been times in our history where such legislation was actively pursued. An early assault on free speech came from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which permitted prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what were deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or the government. The acts were passed by a Federalist Congress, signed by President John Adams, and designed to limit the power of the opposition Republican Party. Enforcement ended after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800.
Another attempt was made in 1918 when Congress passed a different Sedition Act, essentially consisting of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, prohibiting many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of our government or our flag." It was intended to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of US enemies during wartime. Some 1,500 prosecutions were carried out, resulting in more that 1,000 convictions (Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti; The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991). The amendments were repealed in 1921. The Espionage Act was left intact.
While we correctly assert that the opinions expressed during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville ran counter to the values we as a country embrace, it would be un-American to deny sympathizers the right to hold these. Justice Alito's opinion in "Matal v Tami" should resonate with all of us. Marches and hate spewing diatribe from white nationalists and Nazis, and, for that matter, Colin Kaepernick protesting racial inequality by kneeling during our national anthem, may make many feel outright uncomfortable. Denying them the right to do so will make all of us less American.
Friday, September 8, 2017
THE FACES OF WHITE SUPREMACY
The contentious and ultimately lethal demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend of Aug. 11 highlighted a conglomeration of groups which no longer seem to feel the need to operate under the cloak of obscurity. Marchers carrying Tiki torches, swastikas, confederate flags, banners reading "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil," while yelling Nazi slogans left little to the imagination.
In the aftermath of President Trump's botched and highly controversial pronouncements about the violence surrounding this event, every observer and columnist analyzed the repercussions about what happened from all angles and in great detail, leaving little to dissect. Some questions are still left unanswered, however. Who are these people? How many are there? What inspires them? What is their support structure? Do they have First Amendment rights to spout the venom that appears to unite them?
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group focused specifically on the development and existence of "hate groups," defines such collectives as organizations with "beliefs or practices that attract or malign an ethnic class of people typically for their immutable characteristics." Since the turn of the century the number of hate groups have seen explosive growth, driven in part by anger over Latino immigration and demographic projections showing that whites will no longer hold majority status in the country by 2040. The increase in numbers accelerated in 2009 when President Obama took office, declined somewhat after that, and picked up speed again during the last two years because of a presidential campaign that flirted heavily with extremist ideas. (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Map, Aug. 17, 2017).
The groups most prominently identified during the discussion following the Charlottesville events include: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists or white nationalists, Ku Klux Klan, and Alt-Right. Although organizationally distinct, ideology and leadership of these groups often overlap. The neo-Nazis grew out of the National Socialist Movement, which was founded in1974 as the "National Socialist American Workers Freedom Party." This group seeks to revive the far-right tenets of Nazism. It borrows elements of Nazi doctrine, including ultra-nationalism, racism, ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people), xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi literature frequently highlights "14 words," referencing the white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," or alternatively: "Because the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this earth" ("Hate on Display: 14 words," Anti-Defamation League, June 1, 2007). The current national leader of the Nazi movement is Jeff Schoep, who has been a "true believer" since age 10, and who took over in 1994, propelling the NSM into the most active neo-Nazi organization in the country.
"White supremacy" refers to the conviction that white people are in many ways superior to people of other races, and, because of that, white people should dominate other races. This belief is rooted in scientific racism, which claims to establish a connection between race and intelligence, and distinguishes between superior and inferior races. "White nationalism," by extension, is the ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity, suggesting that national citizenship should be reserved for white people only. Leading promoters of white nationalism are Matthew Heimbach and Richard Spencer. Heimbach, in an article entitled: "I Hate Freedom," wrote: This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules" (Traditionalist Youth Network, July7, 2013).
The Ku Klux Klan, better known, was founded in 1866 as a vehicle to oppose Reconstruction policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for African-Americans. David Duke, a white-nationalist politician, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard, remains influential. He made a point of thanking the president for having the courage "to tell the truth" following the Charlottesville events.
The "Alt-Right," a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies, makes a point of influencing these demonstrations wherever they take place. The group was initially identified as "Alternative-Right" by Paul Gottfried, and American paleo-conservative philosopher. Richard Spencer changed the name in 2010 to disguise overt racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. Lindy West, a New York Times opinion writer referred to this designation as an "unacceptable euphemism legitimizing an ideology that would be unacceptable if it were simply called white nationalism."
All of these far-right groups find editorial support and encouragement on websites like "Daily Stormer," a neo-Nazi news and commentary site, and Breitbart News, which expresses similar views, and takes the lead attacking all opinions not in line with its own. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist until just a few week ago, has retaken his previous position as Breitbart's Executive Chairman. These ideologies are substantially supported by individuals who occupy influential positions. Among them are people like Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's Senior Advisor for Policy, and Sebastian Gorka, the president's deputy assistant. Both of these have well-established connections to the white supremacist movement and neo-Nazi extremism. And they have the president's ear.
Enough said. To quote Heather Heyer, the 32-year old paralegal, a counter-demonstrator, killed on Aug. 12 by Nazi sympathizer James Field: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
In the aftermath of President Trump's botched and highly controversial pronouncements about the violence surrounding this event, every observer and columnist analyzed the repercussions about what happened from all angles and in great detail, leaving little to dissect. Some questions are still left unanswered, however. Who are these people? How many are there? What inspires them? What is their support structure? Do they have First Amendment rights to spout the venom that appears to unite them?
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group focused specifically on the development and existence of "hate groups," defines such collectives as organizations with "beliefs or practices that attract or malign an ethnic class of people typically for their immutable characteristics." Since the turn of the century the number of hate groups have seen explosive growth, driven in part by anger over Latino immigration and demographic projections showing that whites will no longer hold majority status in the country by 2040. The increase in numbers accelerated in 2009 when President Obama took office, declined somewhat after that, and picked up speed again during the last two years because of a presidential campaign that flirted heavily with extremist ideas. (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Map, Aug. 17, 2017).
The groups most prominently identified during the discussion following the Charlottesville events include: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists or white nationalists, Ku Klux Klan, and Alt-Right. Although organizationally distinct, ideology and leadership of these groups often overlap. The neo-Nazis grew out of the National Socialist Movement, which was founded in1974 as the "National Socialist American Workers Freedom Party." This group seeks to revive the far-right tenets of Nazism. It borrows elements of Nazi doctrine, including ultra-nationalism, racism, ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people), xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi literature frequently highlights "14 words," referencing the white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," or alternatively: "Because the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this earth" ("Hate on Display: 14 words," Anti-Defamation League, June 1, 2007). The current national leader of the Nazi movement is Jeff Schoep, who has been a "true believer" since age 10, and who took over in 1994, propelling the NSM into the most active neo-Nazi organization in the country.
"White supremacy" refers to the conviction that white people are in many ways superior to people of other races, and, because of that, white people should dominate other races. This belief is rooted in scientific racism, which claims to establish a connection between race and intelligence, and distinguishes between superior and inferior races. "White nationalism," by extension, is the ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity, suggesting that national citizenship should be reserved for white people only. Leading promoters of white nationalism are Matthew Heimbach and Richard Spencer. Heimbach, in an article entitled: "I Hate Freedom," wrote: This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules" (Traditionalist Youth Network, July7, 2013).
The Ku Klux Klan, better known, was founded in 1866 as a vehicle to oppose Reconstruction policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for African-Americans. David Duke, a white-nationalist politician, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard, remains influential. He made a point of thanking the president for having the courage "to tell the truth" following the Charlottesville events.
The "Alt-Right," a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies, makes a point of influencing these demonstrations wherever they take place. The group was initially identified as "Alternative-Right" by Paul Gottfried, and American paleo-conservative philosopher. Richard Spencer changed the name in 2010 to disguise overt racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. Lindy West, a New York Times opinion writer referred to this designation as an "unacceptable euphemism legitimizing an ideology that would be unacceptable if it were simply called white nationalism."
All of these far-right groups find editorial support and encouragement on websites like "Daily Stormer," a neo-Nazi news and commentary site, and Breitbart News, which expresses similar views, and takes the lead attacking all opinions not in line with its own. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist until just a few week ago, has retaken his previous position as Breitbart's Executive Chairman. These ideologies are substantially supported by individuals who occupy influential positions. Among them are people like Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's Senior Advisor for Policy, and Sebastian Gorka, the president's deputy assistant. Both of these have well-established connections to the white supremacist movement and neo-Nazi extremism. And they have the president's ear.
Enough said. To quote Heather Heyer, the 32-year old paralegal, a counter-demonstrator, killed on Aug. 12 by Nazi sympathizer James Field: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)