In scathing article, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. summarized the opinions of many of President Trump's critics about the administration's handling of the growing coronavirus epidemic. M. Pitts exclaimed that: "The mixed-up, mixed-message misadventures of the Trump regime as it struggled to frame a coherent response to the novel coronavirus threat was a master class in what happens in a post-competence world once a critical mass of voters decides that stupidity is authentic and ignorance some form of native genius. It was frightening and perversely fascinating to watch."
Mr. Trump's attempts at playing down the gravity of the outbreak, inserting his hunches over the factual messaging from scientists and other experts, did little to calm people's fears. It also did not help to see the president, on national T.V., proclaim that he would prefer not to let the 3,535 passengers from the Covid-19 stricken cruise ship, the Grand Princess, held off the coast of California, a floating petri-dish on which 21 out of a paltry 44 passengers and crew that were tested, were found infected, to disembark on U.S. soil because: "it would make the number of U.S. infections look worse." Aside from showing his colors and clarifying his concerns, Mr. Trump placed Vice President Mike Pence in charge of his administration's response team, rather than infectious disease specialist. Mr. Pence has often exhibited a contentious relationship with scientific facts and is known for his slavish relationship with Mr. Trump. In short, the president did very little to make the population and the financial markets feel confident about his approach to securing the health and safety of the country.
Donald Trump's response was not unexpected. On the one hand, a significant segment of the voting public, his "base," will accept and support anything he says or does. This in itself is a problem when we are teetering on the edge of a pandemic. On the other hand, as far back as his election, many of his critics referred to his administration as a "kakistocracy," a word derived from the Greek "kakistos," meaning "the worst," identifying a government run by the worst, least qualified and least suitable citizens of a state.
The earliest uses of the word date back to the 17th century, most often used by traditional conservative forces fighting off increasing demands for political change. In 1644, during the time that Britain was enmeshed in its first civil war between the Parliamentarians, led by Oliver Cromwell, who wanted to reshape the government into a constitutional monarchy and the Royalists under King Charles I, who wanted to hold on to the absolute monarchy, in a sermon preached before the two houses of Parliament, at St. Maries, Oxford, Paul Gosnold cautioned: "Therefore we need not make any scruple of praying against such: against those Sanctimonious Incendiaries, who have fetched fire from heaven to set their Country in combustion... Those restles spirits who can no longer live, then be stickling and meddling; who are stung with a perpetual itch of changing and innovating, transforming our old Hierarchy into a new Presbytery, and this again into a newer Independency; and our well-tempered Monarchy into a kind of Kakistocracy. Good Lord."
In his 1829 novel "The Misfortunes of Elphin," Thomas Love Peacock explained that Kakistocracy represented the opposite of aristocracy, as "aristos" in Greek meant"excellent." In his "Memoir on Slavery," published in 1838, William Harper, a U.S. senator from South Carolina, compared kakistocracy to anarchy, claiming it was fully exemplified during the excesses of the French Revolution: "In such a state of things, to be accused is to be condemned - to protect the innocent is to be guilty, and what perhaps is he worst effect, even men of better nature, to whom their own deeds are abhorrent, are goaded by terror to be forward and emulous in deeds of guilt and violence." And in a letter to the writer Joel Benton, in 877, poet James Russell Lowell questioned the excesses of Democracy: "What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone, is it or is it not a result of Democracy? Is ours a 'government of the people by the people for the people,' or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?"
From the early days of his presidency, actually even from before Donald Trump took office, his administration has been compared to a kakistocracy. The president himself was deemed unqualified to be commander-in-chief. His assertion that "I alone can fix it" in his convention speech has always been ingested with a grain of salt. Presidents don't need to be experts. However, they are expected to surround themselves with skilled professionals. Trump's insistence that he knows more than the specialists has become laughable. His cabinet choices have not instilled confidence in the administration's ability to run the government. Rex Tillerson, his first Secretary of State, had zero background in diplomacy of foreign affairs. Jeff Sessions, who was denied a role as federal judge during the 1980s, amid a racism controversy, became Attorney General. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, without a background in housing policy, who early on ruled himself out of a cabinet position because he felt he had no government experience, became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry ran for president on a platform to abolish the Department of Energy, until Mr. Trump made him its leader. Betsy DeVos, who has derided public education, favoring school choice and vouchers instead, became Secretary of Education. And the list goes on.
It is certainly true that kakistocracy as a concept can be abused. It is not difficult to surmise that in every generation there are those who consider their government as the worst ever; The term is often invoked to tarnish any government one disagrees with. But the populist revolution convulsing the world today has led many to discover that "corrupt, dishonest and incompetent politicians, regulators and bureaucrats were put in charge by self-absorbed, selfish and ignorant citizens." (Michael Lewitt, "Investing in a Kakistocracy," Forbes, Oct. 13, 2016).
Be it as it may, Donald Trump's self-centered know-it-all attitude and his lackeys have done little to calm the country's jitters. His claim to have inherited genes from his "great super-genius uncle" who taught at MIT, while waving off medical professionals standing next to him and asserting to have a "natural ability" to understand how to handle the coronavirus threat was hardly reassuring. Our lives and fortunes are at stake. For once, Mr. Trump ought to retire to one of his golf courses, stop worrying about the allegiance of his staff, keep his mouth shut and let he real professionals handle this without being unduly pressured by politics. Real leadership demands no less.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Saturday, November 16, 2019
IMPEACH!?
For the fourth time in our history, Congress is actively pursuing impeaching a president. The act itself is historically rare. However, the process is decidedly political. After all, to charge and convict a president for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," is predominantly a political charge, ambiguous, and not generally codified in any legal manual. In many ways, it describes what Congress decides it means. It is, therefore, no coincidence that none of the parties involved will, at least initially, seem able to agree on the substance of what is being charged. At every level of the process political opponents strategize on either offense or defense, even if they profess publicly to being open to absorbing facts as they come out, to protect their power position in the legislature.
Regardless of which side the parties are on, charges and counter charges have not really varied much throughout our history. While the scope of alleged offenses may remain relatively narrow, partisan defenses have tended to expand well beyond its parameters. To develop a perspective, it may be interesting to review some of the speeches that have surrounded these historic events.
President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial (1868) was perhaps the most notorious one our country endured. Johnson, appointed by President Lincoln as his Vice President to help form a unity government, was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act, past by Congress to protect Edwin M. Stanton, who was Secretary of War, by removing the Secretary from office. The House of Representatives, subsequently, passed 11 articles of impeachment to be adjudicated by the Senate, which missed removing the resident from office by a single vote, short of the 2/3 majority needed to do this. The one vote blocking his removal came from Senator James Grimes of Iowa, a Republican, who stated: "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President."
President Richard Nixon's impeachment inquiry, which was never completed because the president resigned from office, focused almost exclusively on "the Watergate scandal." The House Judiciary Committee voted to begin the impeachment process on October 30, 1973. This vote passed by a 21-17 party-line majority, all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. Some of the most memorable speeches during this very public inquiry came from Representative Barbara Jordan (D-Texas) and Representative Charles Wiggins (R-Cal) and Charles Sandman (R-New Jersey). Congresswoman Jordan, in a memorable 15 minute speech before the Judiciary Committee, eloquently, yet subtly, indicted President Nixon by quoting James Madison: "A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Republican defense at the time charged that no specific piece of evidence linked Nixon to any criminal act. A similar defense is currently being used during the inquiry targeting President Trump.
The impeachment of President Clinton focused on two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde made clear what was at stake: "After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for further complexity. The Question before the House is rather simple. It's not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private acts and are none of Congress' business. It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act." "The issue is perjury - lying under oath." President Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, even though both have been paid off to stay quiet. The difference may be that his denials have thus far not been issued under oath.
This leaves one more issue that continues to surface - the question whether alleged infractions need to be criminal to make them impeachable. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, said the following: Impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." They involve "the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." The charge against Donald Trump is that during interactions with the president of Ukraine he abused his power by using taxpayer dollars as a tool to extract information potentially damaging to a political rival. A few attorneys have alleged that the relevant criminal statute to use in adjudicating this behavior is the "Hobbs Act," which was enacted in 1946 to cover "extortion under color of official right," but which during the mid 1970s assumed a role as an "ethics in government statute," to be used when public officials solicit bribes.
Even so, Representative - now Senator - Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during President Clinton's impeachment, memorably explained: "You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."
Soon this sentiment could come back to haunt him. We are all watching history in the making.
Regardless of which side the parties are on, charges and counter charges have not really varied much throughout our history. While the scope of alleged offenses may remain relatively narrow, partisan defenses have tended to expand well beyond its parameters. To develop a perspective, it may be interesting to review some of the speeches that have surrounded these historic events.
President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial (1868) was perhaps the most notorious one our country endured. Johnson, appointed by President Lincoln as his Vice President to help form a unity government, was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act, past by Congress to protect Edwin M. Stanton, who was Secretary of War, by removing the Secretary from office. The House of Representatives, subsequently, passed 11 articles of impeachment to be adjudicated by the Senate, which missed removing the resident from office by a single vote, short of the 2/3 majority needed to do this. The one vote blocking his removal came from Senator James Grimes of Iowa, a Republican, who stated: "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President."
President Richard Nixon's impeachment inquiry, which was never completed because the president resigned from office, focused almost exclusively on "the Watergate scandal." The House Judiciary Committee voted to begin the impeachment process on October 30, 1973. This vote passed by a 21-17 party-line majority, all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. Some of the most memorable speeches during this very public inquiry came from Representative Barbara Jordan (D-Texas) and Representative Charles Wiggins (R-Cal) and Charles Sandman (R-New Jersey). Congresswoman Jordan, in a memorable 15 minute speech before the Judiciary Committee, eloquently, yet subtly, indicted President Nixon by quoting James Madison: "A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Republican defense at the time charged that no specific piece of evidence linked Nixon to any criminal act. A similar defense is currently being used during the inquiry targeting President Trump.
The impeachment of President Clinton focused on two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde made clear what was at stake: "After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for further complexity. The Question before the House is rather simple. It's not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private acts and are none of Congress' business. It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act." "The issue is perjury - lying under oath." President Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, even though both have been paid off to stay quiet. The difference may be that his denials have thus far not been issued under oath.
This leaves one more issue that continues to surface - the question whether alleged infractions need to be criminal to make them impeachable. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, said the following: Impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." They involve "the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." The charge against Donald Trump is that during interactions with the president of Ukraine he abused his power by using taxpayer dollars as a tool to extract information potentially damaging to a political rival. A few attorneys have alleged that the relevant criminal statute to use in adjudicating this behavior is the "Hobbs Act," which was enacted in 1946 to cover "extortion under color of official right," but which during the mid 1970s assumed a role as an "ethics in government statute," to be used when public officials solicit bribes.
Even so, Representative - now Senator - Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during President Clinton's impeachment, memorably explained: "You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."
Soon this sentiment could come back to haunt him. We are all watching history in the making.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
CALLOUS DECEIT OF LOYAL ALLIES
October 6, 2019, the day Donald Trump tweeted his impulsive decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Northern Syria, will be a day that will live in infamy for the many Kurds, our allies, living along the border with Turkey, who were abandoned without notice and, overnight, left to be slaughtered.
These Kurds were our allies, who essentially did our bidding and engaged in most of the fighting against ISIS, losing almost 11,000 fighters in the process, while we lost 5. They lived in enclaves in Northern Syria, especially around the Syrian town of Kobane, when ISIS launched an assault in September of 2014. Paraphrasing an opinion piece by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn): With our logistic support, we convinced the Kurds to fight and defeat ISIS; subsequently, we urged them to dismantle their defenses, promising to protect them; and then we green-lighted the Turkish troops in, giving them the ability to wipe them out. "Positively sinister."
Twenty-five to thirty-five million Kurds live in a mountainous region, straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Armenia. They compose the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they were never able to develop a permanent state. They do make up a distinctive community, united by race, culture and language. Although they adhere to a number of religions, the majority are Sunni Muslims. After World War I, in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the western allies made provisions for establishing a Kurdish state. However, three years later, in the Treaty of Lausanne, which set the boundaries for modern Turkey, Kurdish statehood was eliminated.
Since this episode, animosity between the Turkish state and the country's Kurds, who constitute 15-20% of its population, continued to fester. Kurdish uprisings during the 1920s and 1930s were quelled, reducing the Kurdish minority to "persona non grata" status. The use of Kurdish language was restricted and their ethnic identity denied. In 1978, Abdullah Ocalan founded the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant and political organization based in Turkey and Iraq. Since 1984, this organization has been involved in armed conflict with the Turkish state, with the aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state. Ever since, the Turkish government has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization. Since its inception, 40,000 people have been killed and hundreds of thousand were displaced. In 2013, a ceasefire was agreed to. However, this collapsed in July 2015 after a suicide bombing near the Kurdish town of Suruc, blamed on ISIS, killed 33 young PKK members. The organization accused the authorities of complicity and attacked Turkish soldiers and police. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued to stage aggressive attacks an Kurdish residents ever since, while eying a "safe zone," devoid of Kurds, on the Syrian side of the border. What kept him from a full-blown invasion of the area and exterminating its population was the alliance between U.S. forces and resident Kurds. Until now.
President Trump reportedly had a telephone conversation with Mr. Erdogan on the night before he ignorantly unlocked the border. Our military was caught flat-footed, incredulous and ashamed. Three days later, on the Wednesday following the Sunday announcement, Turkey launched "Operation Peace Spring" with a full-blown assault on coalition positions, rapidly left undefended by U.S. troops. Hundreds of thousands Kurds were forced to flee with the little they were able to carry, hundreds ended up being slaughtered by Turkish troops and Syrian fighters allied with them. All of this supported by aerial bombardments of civilian targets. Meanwhile, secure safekeeping of tens of thousands ISIS fighters and adherents, corralled in camps and prisons across Northern Syria, could no longer be insured.
Responses, even from the president's supporters, came swift and furious. Majority Leader Mitch McCormick, in an op-ed posted in the Washington Post, blasted the president's decision to withdraw as "a grave mistake," which, "will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances." Lindsey Graham ripped into Trump stating: "This impulsive decision by the president has undone all he gains we've made, thrown the region into chaos. Iran is licking their chops. And if I'm an ISIS fighter, I've got a second lease on life. I hope I'm making myself clear how shortsighted and irresponsible this decision is in my view." And former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley lamented: "We must always have the backs of our allies. Leaving them to die is a big mistake."
Mr.Trump, in the mean time, retorted defensively: "If Turkey does anything that I, in my great unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy the economy of Turkey." A few days later, after the Russians had moved into our positions, and after Putin and Erdogan had agreed on how to carve up the spoils, Trump eliminated all sanctions he threatened to impose earlier, and Erdogan demanded that the United States hand over Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Kurdish-led forces in Syria, suggesting "after all, we have an extradition treaty with America."
Our military forces, supposedly "coming home," were, instead, sent to secure oil fields. The latter announcement prompted a former senior American official to call it a reflection of a "shocking ignorance" of history and geography, and evoked an appropriate headline in Vanity Fair: "Screw the Kurds, Save the Oil." (Oct. 25, 2019).
Trump has blood on his hands. He does not seem to care. He appears to get a rush from the power to destroy the lives of many by a single tweet, while being blindly supported by sycophants chiming in that his act reflected the best solution to our problems in the Middle East, which, after all, aren't our problems. Where have we heard this before?
These Kurds were our allies, who essentially did our bidding and engaged in most of the fighting against ISIS, losing almost 11,000 fighters in the process, while we lost 5. They lived in enclaves in Northern Syria, especially around the Syrian town of Kobane, when ISIS launched an assault in September of 2014. Paraphrasing an opinion piece by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn): With our logistic support, we convinced the Kurds to fight and defeat ISIS; subsequently, we urged them to dismantle their defenses, promising to protect them; and then we green-lighted the Turkish troops in, giving them the ability to wipe them out. "Positively sinister."
Twenty-five to thirty-five million Kurds live in a mountainous region, straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Armenia. They compose the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they were never able to develop a permanent state. They do make up a distinctive community, united by race, culture and language. Although they adhere to a number of religions, the majority are Sunni Muslims. After World War I, in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the western allies made provisions for establishing a Kurdish state. However, three years later, in the Treaty of Lausanne, which set the boundaries for modern Turkey, Kurdish statehood was eliminated.
Since this episode, animosity between the Turkish state and the country's Kurds, who constitute 15-20% of its population, continued to fester. Kurdish uprisings during the 1920s and 1930s were quelled, reducing the Kurdish minority to "persona non grata" status. The use of Kurdish language was restricted and their ethnic identity denied. In 1978, Abdullah Ocalan founded the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant and political organization based in Turkey and Iraq. Since 1984, this organization has been involved in armed conflict with the Turkish state, with the aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state. Ever since, the Turkish government has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization. Since its inception, 40,000 people have been killed and hundreds of thousand were displaced. In 2013, a ceasefire was agreed to. However, this collapsed in July 2015 after a suicide bombing near the Kurdish town of Suruc, blamed on ISIS, killed 33 young PKK members. The organization accused the authorities of complicity and attacked Turkish soldiers and police. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued to stage aggressive attacks an Kurdish residents ever since, while eying a "safe zone," devoid of Kurds, on the Syrian side of the border. What kept him from a full-blown invasion of the area and exterminating its population was the alliance between U.S. forces and resident Kurds. Until now.
President Trump reportedly had a telephone conversation with Mr. Erdogan on the night before he ignorantly unlocked the border. Our military was caught flat-footed, incredulous and ashamed. Three days later, on the Wednesday following the Sunday announcement, Turkey launched "Operation Peace Spring" with a full-blown assault on coalition positions, rapidly left undefended by U.S. troops. Hundreds of thousands Kurds were forced to flee with the little they were able to carry, hundreds ended up being slaughtered by Turkish troops and Syrian fighters allied with them. All of this supported by aerial bombardments of civilian targets. Meanwhile, secure safekeeping of tens of thousands ISIS fighters and adherents, corralled in camps and prisons across Northern Syria, could no longer be insured.
Responses, even from the president's supporters, came swift and furious. Majority Leader Mitch McCormick, in an op-ed posted in the Washington Post, blasted the president's decision to withdraw as "a grave mistake," which, "will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances." Lindsey Graham ripped into Trump stating: "This impulsive decision by the president has undone all he gains we've made, thrown the region into chaos. Iran is licking their chops. And if I'm an ISIS fighter, I've got a second lease on life. I hope I'm making myself clear how shortsighted and irresponsible this decision is in my view." And former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley lamented: "We must always have the backs of our allies. Leaving them to die is a big mistake."
Mr.Trump, in the mean time, retorted defensively: "If Turkey does anything that I, in my great unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy the economy of Turkey." A few days later, after the Russians had moved into our positions, and after Putin and Erdogan had agreed on how to carve up the spoils, Trump eliminated all sanctions he threatened to impose earlier, and Erdogan demanded that the United States hand over Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Kurdish-led forces in Syria, suggesting "after all, we have an extradition treaty with America."
Our military forces, supposedly "coming home," were, instead, sent to secure oil fields. The latter announcement prompted a former senior American official to call it a reflection of a "shocking ignorance" of history and geography, and evoked an appropriate headline in Vanity Fair: "Screw the Kurds, Save the Oil." (Oct. 25, 2019).
Trump has blood on his hands. He does not seem to care. He appears to get a rush from the power to destroy the lives of many by a single tweet, while being blindly supported by sycophants chiming in that his act reflected the best solution to our problems in the Middle East, which, after all, aren't our problems. Where have we heard this before?
Sunday, October 20, 2019
REINTERPRETING HISTORY
History is not an exact science, at least not in the same way we see mathematics. Science refers to objective knowledge, which holds that ideas exist independently from the individual. While primary research includes fact finding, history itself is dependent on interpretation of those facts. What is important about this is that nobody can claim a lock on the content, meaning or relevant facts pertinent to a country's national identity. Which is not to say that a country's history is unimportant. In fact, in addition to national symbols, language, culture, values, traditions and, frequently, ethnicity, a common history, especially when embellished, is essential to a sense of national pride. This, in turn, is related to feelings of patriotism and nationalism. A strong sense of national identity has payoffs in terms of social cohesion and a feeling of belonging by its citizenry.
Given today's world, which, more and more, appears to suffer from an identity crisis, politicians taking the lead in many countries, are intent on reinterpreting their country's past and recreate a national history to fit their political objectives. They look at history as a tool of political propaganda. Especially in states led by authoritarians, history has become an independent variable manipulatable by those seeking to remain in power. The past is something that dictatorships do not leave to chance. They almost always take control of academic research, limit public access to information, and retool history through the lens of their ideology.
Examples are plentiful. In China, Xi Jinping appears convinced that to control his country, he must control its history. In his words, for the Chinese Dream to be achieved, he needs to insure that people "have correct views on history." On one hand, Chinese resistance to the Japanese in the 1930's and the second world war can be remembered. On the other hand, the brutal crackdown during the Tiananmen Square episode in June of 1989, which killed hundreds, and which was removed from the secondary school curriculum in Hong Kong, must be forgotten. (Louisa Lim, "Rewriting history in the People's Republic of Amnesia and beyond," The Conversation, May 28, 2018). Chinese textbooks changed almost overnight in 2006. The new standard world history text dropped wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization. They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. It serves to indoctrinate students during their formative years.
In early 2018, Polish President Andrzei Duda signed a controversial law criminalizing statements that attribute responsibility for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities to "the Polish nation." During a television interview, Duda said that the law protects Poland's interests and the historical truth, "so that we are not slandered." Poland is not the only post-Communist country that tried to reframe the history of its role during WWII and defend the part it played in the Holocaust. Hungary, Ukraine and the Baltic states have all made similar moves. (Rewriting History in Eastern Europe," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2019).
During the past 10-11 years, the Hungarian government has steadily rewritten that country's national history - crafting another, rooted in the "glory days" between the world wars, when Hungary was ruled by right-wing autocrat, and ally of Hitler, Mikols Horthy. This effort has included replacing historical sculptures, art, and reconsidering academic study options. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has waged a systematic assault on Hungary's democracy, rewriting the national Constitution, reshaping the judiciary, tweaking the electoral system and changing the content of textbooks to fit his vision. In a recent interview, Laszlo Miklosi, president of the Association of Hungarian History Teachers, suggested that "the government's goal is to create a version of history preferable to Orban."
Critics maintain that these policies falsify history. Defenders argue that they represent a normal and necessary part of state building. When, 51 years ago, I arrived in this country, I possessed an idealized version of my native Holland. Soon, however, I began to realize that even there, in one of the most progressive countries in Europe, the interpretation of its national history had been contorted to fit the need of developing a positive national identity. My heroes, historical figures like Michiel de Ruyter, Maarten Tromp and Piet Heyn, who, in the Bay of Matanzas, Cuba, in 1628, captured the Spanish Silver Fleet, even worth many millions at the time, were identified by outside historians as pirates or privateers. I found out that our 80 year war with Spain, which ultimately led to Dutch independence, might not have needed to last that long had Dutch merchants not sold guns and ammunition to both sides in the conflict. Participation by the Dutch West India Company in the slave trade during the second half of the 17th century, transporting 2,500 to 3,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas, something never seen in Dutch history textbooks, was an eye opener. And even today, a New York Times article describing the role the Dutch national railroad played in transporting 107,000 Jewish residents to transit and extermination camps in Germany during World War II, something mostly kept quiet for 70 years, served to have me re-examine history with newly opened eyes.
Every country is either doing it, or has done so during their formative period. Today, digitalization has made deliberate reinterpretations and distortions of history far easier. In the past, someone who wanted to censor had to go to the bookshelves and remove copies or pages. But today, with a few keystrokes, that same individual can wipe out content everywhere instantly. The result is that anyone who does research will come away misinformed or with a distorted view.
To quote 19th century French philosopher Ernest Renan: "Forgetting is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation."
Given today's world, which, more and more, appears to suffer from an identity crisis, politicians taking the lead in many countries, are intent on reinterpreting their country's past and recreate a national history to fit their political objectives. They look at history as a tool of political propaganda. Especially in states led by authoritarians, history has become an independent variable manipulatable by those seeking to remain in power. The past is something that dictatorships do not leave to chance. They almost always take control of academic research, limit public access to information, and retool history through the lens of their ideology.
Examples are plentiful. In China, Xi Jinping appears convinced that to control his country, he must control its history. In his words, for the Chinese Dream to be achieved, he needs to insure that people "have correct views on history." On one hand, Chinese resistance to the Japanese in the 1930's and the second world war can be remembered. On the other hand, the brutal crackdown during the Tiananmen Square episode in June of 1989, which killed hundreds, and which was removed from the secondary school curriculum in Hong Kong, must be forgotten. (Louisa Lim, "Rewriting history in the People's Republic of Amnesia and beyond," The Conversation, May 28, 2018). Chinese textbooks changed almost overnight in 2006. The new standard world history text dropped wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization. They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. It serves to indoctrinate students during their formative years.
In early 2018, Polish President Andrzei Duda signed a controversial law criminalizing statements that attribute responsibility for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities to "the Polish nation." During a television interview, Duda said that the law protects Poland's interests and the historical truth, "so that we are not slandered." Poland is not the only post-Communist country that tried to reframe the history of its role during WWII and defend the part it played in the Holocaust. Hungary, Ukraine and the Baltic states have all made similar moves. (Rewriting History in Eastern Europe," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2019).
During the past 10-11 years, the Hungarian government has steadily rewritten that country's national history - crafting another, rooted in the "glory days" between the world wars, when Hungary was ruled by right-wing autocrat, and ally of Hitler, Mikols Horthy. This effort has included replacing historical sculptures, art, and reconsidering academic study options. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has waged a systematic assault on Hungary's democracy, rewriting the national Constitution, reshaping the judiciary, tweaking the electoral system and changing the content of textbooks to fit his vision. In a recent interview, Laszlo Miklosi, president of the Association of Hungarian History Teachers, suggested that "the government's goal is to create a version of history preferable to Orban."
Critics maintain that these policies falsify history. Defenders argue that they represent a normal and necessary part of state building. When, 51 years ago, I arrived in this country, I possessed an idealized version of my native Holland. Soon, however, I began to realize that even there, in one of the most progressive countries in Europe, the interpretation of its national history had been contorted to fit the need of developing a positive national identity. My heroes, historical figures like Michiel de Ruyter, Maarten Tromp and Piet Heyn, who, in the Bay of Matanzas, Cuba, in 1628, captured the Spanish Silver Fleet, even worth many millions at the time, were identified by outside historians as pirates or privateers. I found out that our 80 year war with Spain, which ultimately led to Dutch independence, might not have needed to last that long had Dutch merchants not sold guns and ammunition to both sides in the conflict. Participation by the Dutch West India Company in the slave trade during the second half of the 17th century, transporting 2,500 to 3,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas, something never seen in Dutch history textbooks, was an eye opener. And even today, a New York Times article describing the role the Dutch national railroad played in transporting 107,000 Jewish residents to transit and extermination camps in Germany during World War II, something mostly kept quiet for 70 years, served to have me re-examine history with newly opened eyes.
Every country is either doing it, or has done so during their formative period. Today, digitalization has made deliberate reinterpretations and distortions of history far easier. In the past, someone who wanted to censor had to go to the bookshelves and remove copies or pages. But today, with a few keystrokes, that same individual can wipe out content everywhere instantly. The result is that anyone who does research will come away misinformed or with a distorted view.
To quote 19th century French philosopher Ernest Renan: "Forgetting is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation."
Saturday, October 19, 2019
DIVINE RIGHT IN THE AGE OF TRUMP
The believe that various forms of one-person rule are derived from a unique authority-conferring relationship with the divine has existed in multiple forms throughout history. In Europe, the "divine right of kings" was formalized into a theory of legitimacy during the period following the middle ages, in the face of attempts at dominance by the Pope, feudal lords, and emerging theses based on the consent of the ruled. Its adoption attempted to end the instability caused by divided loyalties between political and spiritual leaders. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, the will of his people, the aristocracy, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. As a political theory, it was refined by James VI of Scotland, the future King James I of England, and fully adopted by King Louis XIV, who ruled France from 1643 - 1715, becoming the longest reigning European monarch on record.
King Louis' parents christened him Louis Dieudonne - meaning "Gift of God." He ascended the throne at age 4, assisted by his chief minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Jules Mazarin, his godfather. The latter instilled in the child the notion that kings were divinely chosen, infallible and impotent, having unlimited power. He chose the sun as his personal symbol and became known as the Sun King. His identity remains visible throughout he Palace of Versailles, a former royal hunting lodge Louis transformed after he decided he did not want to live in Paris any longer. Louis XIV also gained notoriety because of his supposed exclamation that "L'etat c'est moi," (I am the state), expressing the spirit of the rule by which he held all political authority. However, there is no real evidence he actually said it. The first reference of this statement came almost 200 years after his death, in Jacques-Antoine Dulaure's 1834 "History of Paris." It refers to a time when young King Louis sat in parliament in 1655. Listening to its president lecturing on affairs of state, he reportedly got fed up enough to interrupt he man with "l'etat c'est moi."
Fast forward to our current political environment. President Trump's assumption of powers he believes he has have produced regular headlines comparing his demeanor to assumptions made by former kings. David Armitage, in "Trump and the Return of Divine Right," (The New York Times, July 12, 2018), wrote: "In deploying his pardon power freely and using the Bible to justify family separation, the president is exactly the sort of ruler that Enlightenment thinkers feared." Dana Milbank posted: "Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right." (The Washington Post, May 14, 2019). He recounted arguments made on behalf of the president by one of his lawyers, William Consovoy, who argued that Congress can't use a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a "legitimate legislative purpose, and any legitimate legislative purpose Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional."
President Trump claims to have the "absolute right" to do a lot of things. When speaking to a group of young conservatives in D.C. at "The turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit" on July 23, he told his audience "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." He claims to have the right to pardon himself, or to order U.S. companies out of China. Through his lawyers he has claimed being the state. In a leaked memo intended for Robert Mueller, they asserted: "Put simply...the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations." (Ed Simon, "Donald Trump: L'Etat C'est Moi!" History News Network, Jun. 5, 2018). And, just recently, he reportedly told his aides to get a wall built along he southwestern border before the 2020 election by whatever means necessary, including seizing land on the U.S.-Mexico frontier, and waiving environmental and public health laws, while floating the idea of offering pardons to aides willing to break the law.
Examples are plentiful. Much of these percolated back to the front pages after conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root described Mr. Trump, literally, as being like the King of Israel and said "Jews love him like the second coming of God." Trump, never bashful, embraced Mr. Root's claims, adding, while tilting his head to the heavens, "I am the chosen one." (Ostensibly to fix the U.S. trade imbalances with China).
These were not the first "divine right" references related to Trump on record. During an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sarah Sander related: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there." Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, has said that "only God could deliver such a savior to our nation." And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested earlier this year that Trump "might have been sent to protect the Jewish people from Iran."
Even though, at the onset, several of our founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, accepted the role of a king, ultimately, because of King George III of England's abuse of power, our founding fathers became vehemently opposed to establishing a monarchy in our country. They would turn over in their graves if history books ended up publishing a name like "Donald the Omnipotent" side by side with names like: "Alexander the Great," "Philip the Bold," or "Farmer George" as King George III was also known.
King Louis' parents christened him Louis Dieudonne - meaning "Gift of God." He ascended the throne at age 4, assisted by his chief minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Jules Mazarin, his godfather. The latter instilled in the child the notion that kings were divinely chosen, infallible and impotent, having unlimited power. He chose the sun as his personal symbol and became known as the Sun King. His identity remains visible throughout he Palace of Versailles, a former royal hunting lodge Louis transformed after he decided he did not want to live in Paris any longer. Louis XIV also gained notoriety because of his supposed exclamation that "L'etat c'est moi," (I am the state), expressing the spirit of the rule by which he held all political authority. However, there is no real evidence he actually said it. The first reference of this statement came almost 200 years after his death, in Jacques-Antoine Dulaure's 1834 "History of Paris." It refers to a time when young King Louis sat in parliament in 1655. Listening to its president lecturing on affairs of state, he reportedly got fed up enough to interrupt he man with "l'etat c'est moi."
Fast forward to our current political environment. President Trump's assumption of powers he believes he has have produced regular headlines comparing his demeanor to assumptions made by former kings. David Armitage, in "Trump and the Return of Divine Right," (The New York Times, July 12, 2018), wrote: "In deploying his pardon power freely and using the Bible to justify family separation, the president is exactly the sort of ruler that Enlightenment thinkers feared." Dana Milbank posted: "Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right." (The Washington Post, May 14, 2019). He recounted arguments made on behalf of the president by one of his lawyers, William Consovoy, who argued that Congress can't use a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a "legitimate legislative purpose, and any legitimate legislative purpose Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional."
President Trump claims to have the "absolute right" to do a lot of things. When speaking to a group of young conservatives in D.C. at "The turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit" on July 23, he told his audience "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." He claims to have the right to pardon himself, or to order U.S. companies out of China. Through his lawyers he has claimed being the state. In a leaked memo intended for Robert Mueller, they asserted: "Put simply...the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations." (Ed Simon, "Donald Trump: L'Etat C'est Moi!" History News Network, Jun. 5, 2018). And, just recently, he reportedly told his aides to get a wall built along he southwestern border before the 2020 election by whatever means necessary, including seizing land on the U.S.-Mexico frontier, and waiving environmental and public health laws, while floating the idea of offering pardons to aides willing to break the law.
Examples are plentiful. Much of these percolated back to the front pages after conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root described Mr. Trump, literally, as being like the King of Israel and said "Jews love him like the second coming of God." Trump, never bashful, embraced Mr. Root's claims, adding, while tilting his head to the heavens, "I am the chosen one." (Ostensibly to fix the U.S. trade imbalances with China).
These were not the first "divine right" references related to Trump on record. During an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sarah Sander related: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there." Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, has said that "only God could deliver such a savior to our nation." And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested earlier this year that Trump "might have been sent to protect the Jewish people from Iran."
Even though, at the onset, several of our founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, accepted the role of a king, ultimately, because of King George III of England's abuse of power, our founding fathers became vehemently opposed to establishing a monarchy in our country. They would turn over in their graves if history books ended up publishing a name like "Donald the Omnipotent" side by side with names like: "Alexander the Great," "Philip the Bold," or "Farmer George" as King George III was also known.
Friday, October 18, 2019
WALL FUNDING REDUCES NATO'S DEFENSIVE CAPACITY
While much of the country is focused on the congressional impeachment inquiry, which, in part, involves national security issues, military construction projects at home and abroad are facing a significant loss of financial support.
On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of armed forces in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.
About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.
Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.
Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.
Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."
On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.
To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."
On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of armed forces in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.
About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.
Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.
Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.
Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."
On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.
To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
POLITICS CAN CORRUPT SCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES
We appear to be living during an era permeated by fake news and alternative facts.
President Trump's persistent rehashing of the defense of his erroneous announcement that Alabama would be significantly affected by Hurricane Dorian, which was immediately refuted by professionals at he National Weather Service in Birmingham, had a much longer lifeline than expected or warranted.
The story goes that Trump instructed his staff to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "clarify" the forecasters ' position. Subsequently, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross warned NOAA's administrator that top employees could be fired if the situation was not addressed. This was followed by an unsigned memo supporting Mr. Trump's announcement and a press conference during which the president displayed a weather map featuring a hand-drawn "correction" suggesting that he had looked at a map supporting his contention. A clear case of creating alternative facts contradicting the conclusions arrived at by the scientists trained to do this. Hence, "sharpie gate" was created.
This episode is emblematic of how scientific facts are denied and replaced with politically convenient substitutes embraced by a subservient subset of supporters unqualified or unwilling to question their veracity. In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter received a Pulitzer Prize for his classic publication "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (Knopf, 1963). He traced the social movements that altered the role of intellect in American society and concluded that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful, mechanical and functional - were embedded in America's national fabric, an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that American Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigor. In his mind, anti-intellectualism represented a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are considered to represent it.
Our founders did not appear to harbor anti-intellectual thoughts. They were well educated, intelligent leaders of their time. Many were considered intellectuals in their own right - "sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time." (Walter Moss, The Crassness and Anti-Intellectualism of President Donald Trump," History News Network, March 18, 2018). It was during President Andrew Jackson's second presidential term that the French diplomat, political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous description of "Democracy in America," that the spirit of American self-interest appeared crass, suggesting that Americans judge the value of anything by asking: "How much money will it bring in?" De Tocqueville was one of the first students of American life to identify the presence of anti-intellectualism at multiple levels in our society.
The schism between intellectual elites and lesser educated masses is not a typical American occurrence. Anti-intellectualism has been present in some form and degree in most societies. There are studies of very similar phenomena observed in BC periods in Roman and Greek cultures. The Nazis and Fascists burned entire libraries and executed intellectuals who questioned their tactics. More recently, the world experienced Pol Pot's hatred of bourgeois professionals, which led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Mao Zedong set the Red Guards on millions of members of the cultural elite. The Turkish government decided to strike "evolution" from school curricula, and so on.
However, seldom has the occupant of our White House exhibited such a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity, such lack of curiosity and disregard for rigorous analysis. During his election campaign, Donald Trump regularly complained about how terrible the experts were. "Look at the mess we're in with all the experts we have." Throughout, he has shown his contempt for evidence-based research. His original budget proposal reflected this. He wanted to significantly defund the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He withdrew from UNESCO, which promotes international collaboration through the arts and sciences. And the administration routinely prevents its scientists from including global warming research reports in their testimony. Mr. Trump has been known to shelve reports, simply because he did not believe them. He skipped a G-7 session about climate change, declaring that American wealth is based on energy and that he would not "jeopardize that for dreams and windmills." And he famously claimed: "I think I know more about the environment than most people."
President Trump's open antipathy towards science, supported by a substantial segment of his political base, has generated a fairly significant body of work by journalists and academics. Titles like: "Americans are not only getting dumber, they're proud of their ignorance." (John L. Mecik, Penn Live, Aug. 3, 2017), and a well-researched book by Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, Tom Nichols: "The Death of Expertise - the campaign against expertise and why it matters," (Oxford University Press, 2017), are only a few.
Some blame the onset of the internet, which made it possible to find a source to support any opinion under the sun, no matter how outrageously unscientific it might be, and which made people feel more empowered to voice their opinion. Nichols believes that "to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile ego from ever being told they're wrong about anything."
President Trump seems to be taking this conclusion to heart.
President Trump's persistent rehashing of the defense of his erroneous announcement that Alabama would be significantly affected by Hurricane Dorian, which was immediately refuted by professionals at he National Weather Service in Birmingham, had a much longer lifeline than expected or warranted.
The story goes that Trump instructed his staff to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "clarify" the forecasters ' position. Subsequently, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross warned NOAA's administrator that top employees could be fired if the situation was not addressed. This was followed by an unsigned memo supporting Mr. Trump's announcement and a press conference during which the president displayed a weather map featuring a hand-drawn "correction" suggesting that he had looked at a map supporting his contention. A clear case of creating alternative facts contradicting the conclusions arrived at by the scientists trained to do this. Hence, "sharpie gate" was created.
This episode is emblematic of how scientific facts are denied and replaced with politically convenient substitutes embraced by a subservient subset of supporters unqualified or unwilling to question their veracity. In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter received a Pulitzer Prize for his classic publication "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (Knopf, 1963). He traced the social movements that altered the role of intellect in American society and concluded that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful, mechanical and functional - were embedded in America's national fabric, an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that American Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigor. In his mind, anti-intellectualism represented a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are considered to represent it.
Our founders did not appear to harbor anti-intellectual thoughts. They were well educated, intelligent leaders of their time. Many were considered intellectuals in their own right - "sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time." (Walter Moss, The Crassness and Anti-Intellectualism of President Donald Trump," History News Network, March 18, 2018). It was during President Andrew Jackson's second presidential term that the French diplomat, political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous description of "Democracy in America," that the spirit of American self-interest appeared crass, suggesting that Americans judge the value of anything by asking: "How much money will it bring in?" De Tocqueville was one of the first students of American life to identify the presence of anti-intellectualism at multiple levels in our society.
The schism between intellectual elites and lesser educated masses is not a typical American occurrence. Anti-intellectualism has been present in some form and degree in most societies. There are studies of very similar phenomena observed in BC periods in Roman and Greek cultures. The Nazis and Fascists burned entire libraries and executed intellectuals who questioned their tactics. More recently, the world experienced Pol Pot's hatred of bourgeois professionals, which led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Mao Zedong set the Red Guards on millions of members of the cultural elite. The Turkish government decided to strike "evolution" from school curricula, and so on.
However, seldom has the occupant of our White House exhibited such a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity, such lack of curiosity and disregard for rigorous analysis. During his election campaign, Donald Trump regularly complained about how terrible the experts were. "Look at the mess we're in with all the experts we have." Throughout, he has shown his contempt for evidence-based research. His original budget proposal reflected this. He wanted to significantly defund the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He withdrew from UNESCO, which promotes international collaboration through the arts and sciences. And the administration routinely prevents its scientists from including global warming research reports in their testimony. Mr. Trump has been known to shelve reports, simply because he did not believe them. He skipped a G-7 session about climate change, declaring that American wealth is based on energy and that he would not "jeopardize that for dreams and windmills." And he famously claimed: "I think I know more about the environment than most people."
President Trump's open antipathy towards science, supported by a substantial segment of his political base, has generated a fairly significant body of work by journalists and academics. Titles like: "Americans are not only getting dumber, they're proud of their ignorance." (John L. Mecik, Penn Live, Aug. 3, 2017), and a well-researched book by Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, Tom Nichols: "The Death of Expertise - the campaign against expertise and why it matters," (Oxford University Press, 2017), are only a few.
Some blame the onset of the internet, which made it possible to find a source to support any opinion under the sun, no matter how outrageously unscientific it might be, and which made people feel more empowered to voice their opinion. Nichols believes that "to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile ego from ever being told they're wrong about anything."
President Trump seems to be taking this conclusion to heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)