During the run-up tot the midterm elections, Donald Trump, in raucous stump speeches designed to energize his Republican base, made wildly inaccurate and baseless immigration claims, painting a doomsday scenario if Democrats were to take control of Congress. In rally after rally Trump exclaimed that: "Democrats are openly encouraging millions of illegal aliens to break our laws, violate our sovereignty, overrun our borders and destroy our nation in so many ways. We can't let that happen." He continued to assert that a caravan of a few thousand migrants moving north to the U.S. border consisted of MS-13 gang members, violent criminal and "unknown middle-easterners." Clams for which he never provided concrete evidence. (Ashley Parker et al., "Trump and Republicans settle on fear," The Washington post, Oct. 22, 2018).
While many of us in this country may have looked at his approach as a peculiar style Trump cultivated and applied during the 2016 election, assuming that it would work again this time around, the concept of spreading fear among electorates has become commonplace in an increasing number of countries dominated by populist, nativist and nationalist politicians. Populism has grown rapidly, its roots run deep, and analysts believe that the social and economic trends that have caused it will last long after the current crop of populist leaders has faded from the scene. Causes include: economic insecurity, social insecurity and political in effectiveness. Economic insecurity stems from income in equality, stagnation in average real in comes, and a drastically challenging labor market. Social insecurity comes from a perceived threat of immigration, generating cultural dislocation an loss of identity. And the feeling is that traditional political parties have become ineffective in coping with the dislocation fueled by globalization and technology.
Populism - a political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite, targets lower income, less educated segments of the population, and plays on their fears of becoming economically irrelevant. Nativism, which seeks to protect the interest of native born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants, stresses the fear of losing cultural identity. Nationalism, in its extreme form of chauvinism, jingoism or xenophobia, develops as a direct result from exploiting these fears, and become dangerous when manipulated by crafty politicians.
Examples of the use of "fear" in political rhetoric to attract a compliant following have become ubiquitous. Viktor Orban in Hungary, often referred to as the "Trump of Europe," spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer money on ad campaigns conjuring up an atmosphere of hatred and fear of immigrants, promising to protect his nation against foreign enemies that, he said, are seeking to undermine its identity, integrity and sovereignty. In Italy, Mateo Salvini, who graduated from the position of Federal Secretary of the populist, neo-nationalist, Northern League, to, after recent elections, became Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, has declare a public safety emergency (even though Italy's crime rate has dropped for years), cracked down on immigration by facilitating deportation and severely restricting pathways to legal status, and loosened gun laws , making it easier for people to injure or kill intruders. In Germany, the anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic, AFD - Alternative for Germany - Party has become the third largest party in parliament. While impressive for a relatively new organization, in states that formerly belonged to Communist East Germany, the party clearly dominates, achieving this status by praying on a long-simmering sense of discrimination, injustice an anger among those who, dating back to unification, never felt integrated in the overall society. After the influx of more than one million, mostly Muslim, refugees, the party projected even greater economic decline and cultural marginalization.
In extreme cases, the politics of fear practiced by populist politicians can become cataclysmic. Case in point, Germany post World War One. While Germany was weighted down by debt and feelings of defeat, Adolph Hitler promised to restore the country to its former glory. He spoke from an ultranationalist platform and positioned himself as a voice of the people against he government elite which brokered the Versailles Treaty and left the country weak and in debt. "Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, it needs leader, someone capable of restoring its character." (Tom Whipple, "From Hitler to Trump, Populist Leaders Profit form Fear," The Times, June 13, 2017.) We all know how that ended.
Globalization of the world economy, enhanced automation resulting from a destabilizing technological revolution which already eliminated many traditional occupations, and shifting demographic realities compounded by migration patterns fueled by conflict and despair elsewhere, threatening a cultural mix natives no longer identify with, re causing distress among a growing segment of the population here and elsewhere. This extreme discomfort is real, and established governments have difficulty coping with a dynamically changing environment. Populist practitioners exploiting and exacerbating resulting fears may corral these disenfranchised groups to help themselves get elected. However, thus far they haven't shown an ability to solve underlying causes either. At best, they have succeeded in polarizing the political landscape, frequently making it more volatile and dangerous.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
IN FLANDERS FIELD
Last Sunday, November 11, 2018, marked the 100th anniversary of the armistice signed in Compiegne, France, which went into effect November 11, 2018, marking the end of World War One, victory for the Allies and defeat for Germany. (The latter did not formally surrender.) This has been called "the Great War," by all accounts the most miserable and most brutal military conflict the western world has ever seen. Over 16 million military and 10 million civilian casualties were attributed to this "great" war. America mobilized 4 million combatants. Of these, 116,708 died, and another 204,000 were wounded.
The day before the anniversary our president was scheduled to honor the dead and lay a wreath at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Belleau, 50 miles north of Paris. In 1918 the U.S. Marine Corps and French military repelled German forces in this location. More than 1,800 Americans died here, and 2,300 are buried in this cemetery. Because it was raining, Donald Trump decided not to bother doing the honors, and stay in more comfortable surroundings in the French capital. Our insensitive, void of empathy, Commander-in-Chief may not have cared about the expressions of incredulity from attending dignitaries and on social media, but the response was quick, and overwhelmingly negative.
Nicolas Soames, one of Winston Churchill's grandsons, tweeted: "They died with their face to the foe, and that pathetic inadequate Donald Trump couldn't even defy the weather to pay his respect to the fallen." Former Secretary of State John Kerry remarked: "These veterans the president didn't bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow - and many died in trenches for the cause of freedom." On social media a cartoon depicting a medic comforting a dying soldier with the caption: "It's OK marine ... some day in the future and American President will travel great distances to honor your sacrifice. Unless of course it's raining," was shared several hundred thousand times. Trump's insensitive reaction to mildly inclement weather generated myriad emotional responses, none uplifting. In the meantime, 92 year old Queen Elizabeth of England did attend a ceremony, braving the rain, credibly displaying empathy and a sense of responsibility.
My wife and I were fortunate enough to be able to attend the Hawaii World War One Centennial Commemoration at the War Memorial Natatorium near Waikiki in Honolulu. Since I became aware of the disgraceful disrespect exhibited by someone we supposedly elected to lead us in honoring those who gave everything for our freedom, I experienced emotions that were difficult to shake, became teary-eyed, and ashamed for our country. The opportunity to participate in Hawaii's commemoration ceremony helped take the edge off.
Hawaii was still considered a territory during WW1. However, on a per capita basis, this territory mobilized more of its citizens to active military service than any state or territory in the nation. A total of 9,800 Hawaiians served in uniform, mostly in the army. The depth and diversity of Hawaii's contribution were staggering. Native Hawaiians, as well as immigrant Chinese, Japanese and Filipino men all stepped up to serve. The ceremony was solemn, at times emotional, and was well attended by veterans of all ranks and cultures, government officials from dozens of countries, Governor David Ige and his wife, Mayor Kirk Caldwell, and Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of our Pacific Fleet. It featured a vintage Hawaiian, inclusive, Polynesian, multi-cultural ceremony, framed appropriately and respectfully by expressions of the nation's gratitude for the service of its veterans.
One of the most emotional presentations, leaving few dry eyes, was a recitation by First Lady Dawn Ige of John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Field." These words, written in May 1915, only ten months after the conflict began, remain powerful today:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we
lie in Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies
grow in Flanders fields.
Someone should read this to Donald Trump, since he famously does not read, and explain its content. Then again, he probably won't get it.
The day before the anniversary our president was scheduled to honor the dead and lay a wreath at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in Belleau, 50 miles north of Paris. In 1918 the U.S. Marine Corps and French military repelled German forces in this location. More than 1,800 Americans died here, and 2,300 are buried in this cemetery. Because it was raining, Donald Trump decided not to bother doing the honors, and stay in more comfortable surroundings in the French capital. Our insensitive, void of empathy, Commander-in-Chief may not have cared about the expressions of incredulity from attending dignitaries and on social media, but the response was quick, and overwhelmingly negative.
Nicolas Soames, one of Winston Churchill's grandsons, tweeted: "They died with their face to the foe, and that pathetic inadequate Donald Trump couldn't even defy the weather to pay his respect to the fallen." Former Secretary of State John Kerry remarked: "These veterans the president didn't bother to honor fought in the rain, in the mud, in the snow - and many died in trenches for the cause of freedom." On social media a cartoon depicting a medic comforting a dying soldier with the caption: "It's OK marine ... some day in the future and American President will travel great distances to honor your sacrifice. Unless of course it's raining," was shared several hundred thousand times. Trump's insensitive reaction to mildly inclement weather generated myriad emotional responses, none uplifting. In the meantime, 92 year old Queen Elizabeth of England did attend a ceremony, braving the rain, credibly displaying empathy and a sense of responsibility.
My wife and I were fortunate enough to be able to attend the Hawaii World War One Centennial Commemoration at the War Memorial Natatorium near Waikiki in Honolulu. Since I became aware of the disgraceful disrespect exhibited by someone we supposedly elected to lead us in honoring those who gave everything for our freedom, I experienced emotions that were difficult to shake, became teary-eyed, and ashamed for our country. The opportunity to participate in Hawaii's commemoration ceremony helped take the edge off.
Hawaii was still considered a territory during WW1. However, on a per capita basis, this territory mobilized more of its citizens to active military service than any state or territory in the nation. A total of 9,800 Hawaiians served in uniform, mostly in the army. The depth and diversity of Hawaii's contribution were staggering. Native Hawaiians, as well as immigrant Chinese, Japanese and Filipino men all stepped up to serve. The ceremony was solemn, at times emotional, and was well attended by veterans of all ranks and cultures, government officials from dozens of countries, Governor David Ige and his wife, Mayor Kirk Caldwell, and Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of our Pacific Fleet. It featured a vintage Hawaiian, inclusive, Polynesian, multi-cultural ceremony, framed appropriately and respectfully by expressions of the nation's gratitude for the service of its veterans.
One of the most emotional presentations, leaving few dry eyes, was a recitation by First Lady Dawn Ige of John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Field." These words, written in May 1915, only ten months after the conflict began, remain powerful today:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we
lie in Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies
grow in Flanders fields.
Someone should read this to Donald Trump, since he famously does not read, and explain its content. Then again, he probably won't get it.
Friday, October 5, 2018
SOCIALISM - A SLUR OR SIMPLY MISUNDERSTOOD?
During his Sept. 25 speech before the U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump called for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela by way of referencing historically ingrained biases. In his speech, produced by his Senior Advisor Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump proclaimed that: "Virtually everywhere Socialism or Communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption and decay. Socialism's thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion and oppression. All nations of the world should resist Socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone."
While this may be just a snippet from the president's rambling speech, it appears to have been designed for domestic consumption, as well as to incite an international response, while regurgitating "red scare" propaganda from the 1920's and 1950's, conflating Socialism with Communism, and exhibiting a misunderstanding of Socialism and its role in some highly developed western democracies.
To be clear, Socialism and Communism, although linked in some political theories, are not alike. Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Karl Marx saw Socialism as a historical phase of economic development superseding Capitalism. The term refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. The conception of that control has been interpreted in myriad ways. Over time multiple paths by which Capitalism can best be turned into Socialism have been identified.
Pure Socialism has only been seen very rarely, usually in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, also referred to as democratic Socialism, in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth. (Donald F. Busky, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger, July 20, 2000).
In 19th century Marxist theory, Socialism was considered a transitional state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism. In reality, this is not what happened. During the 1920s and 1930s, even Hitler separated Communism from Socialism as being on opposite ends of a continuum. Moreover, Socialism did not produce suffering, corruption, et. as depicted in the president's speech. Near the top of a list identifying the 10 most socialist countries in the world (Peerform, Dec. 6, 2012), we find allies like Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland. These countries tend to feature large welfare programs, including universal free healthcare. They focus on developing an egalitarian lifestyle. It is notable that Denmark only spends 11 percent of its GDP on healthcare. We spend 18 percent. A list of countries on the "Quality of Life Index" show that Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands rank #1, 2 and 3. The U.S. ranks #9. Moreover, Norway has the highest standard of living in Europe.
Venezuela, by the way, is not considered to be a socialist country. It has a mixed economy, a compromise between government ownership of the means of production and free market Capitalism. Over 70% of its economy is comprised of private industry. The country has less central government spending than European social democracies.
In a way, Mr. Trump's misguided verbal attack on Socialism may be understandable. Public speeches, even those before an international audience, are designed to inspire a domestic audience as well. Cynics may remind us that during this election year Socialism has cropped up as an issue. In recently concluded primaries nearly two dozen candidates ran under the socialist banner on platforms that included healthcare for all, a $15 per hour minimum wage, free tuition and income equality. Newcomer, and self identified Socialist, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's primary defeat of Rep. Joe Crowly, the fourth highest ranking House Democrat representing New York's 14th district, sent shockwaves through both parties. The "Democratic Socialists of America," a group formed in 1982, has experienced an enormous surge of interest since President Trump was elected. Since November 2016, its membership increased more than seven-fold, from 6,000 to 45,000.
While Socialism seems to be losing its historic stigma in this country, there does appear to be a significant generation gap in its insurgence. In a 2015 Harvard Institute poll, a plurality of voters under 30 supported Socialism, dropping to 15% among those over 65.
Democratic Party leaders worry that talking openly about being a Socialist will make it harder to defeat Republican opponents. After all, the word "Socialist" has long been wielded by conservatives as a slur, associated with bad things in history.
Perhaps it would help to understand what we really are talking about.
While this may be just a snippet from the president's rambling speech, it appears to have been designed for domestic consumption, as well as to incite an international response, while regurgitating "red scare" propaganda from the 1920's and 1950's, conflating Socialism with Communism, and exhibiting a misunderstanding of Socialism and its role in some highly developed western democracies.
To be clear, Socialism and Communism, although linked in some political theories, are not alike. Communism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Karl Marx saw Socialism as a historical phase of economic development superseding Capitalism. The term refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. The conception of that control has been interpreted in myriad ways. Over time multiple paths by which Capitalism can best be turned into Socialism have been identified.
Pure Socialism has only been seen very rarely, usually in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, also referred to as democratic Socialism, in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth. (Donald F. Busky, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger, July 20, 2000).
In 19th century Marxist theory, Socialism was considered a transitional state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism. In reality, this is not what happened. During the 1920s and 1930s, even Hitler separated Communism from Socialism as being on opposite ends of a continuum. Moreover, Socialism did not produce suffering, corruption, et. as depicted in the president's speech. Near the top of a list identifying the 10 most socialist countries in the world (Peerform, Dec. 6, 2012), we find allies like Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland. These countries tend to feature large welfare programs, including universal free healthcare. They focus on developing an egalitarian lifestyle. It is notable that Denmark only spends 11 percent of its GDP on healthcare. We spend 18 percent. A list of countries on the "Quality of Life Index" show that Denmark, Finland and The Netherlands rank #1, 2 and 3. The U.S. ranks #9. Moreover, Norway has the highest standard of living in Europe.
Venezuela, by the way, is not considered to be a socialist country. It has a mixed economy, a compromise between government ownership of the means of production and free market Capitalism. Over 70% of its economy is comprised of private industry. The country has less central government spending than European social democracies.
In a way, Mr. Trump's misguided verbal attack on Socialism may be understandable. Public speeches, even those before an international audience, are designed to inspire a domestic audience as well. Cynics may remind us that during this election year Socialism has cropped up as an issue. In recently concluded primaries nearly two dozen candidates ran under the socialist banner on platforms that included healthcare for all, a $15 per hour minimum wage, free tuition and income equality. Newcomer, and self identified Socialist, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's primary defeat of Rep. Joe Crowly, the fourth highest ranking House Democrat representing New York's 14th district, sent shockwaves through both parties. The "Democratic Socialists of America," a group formed in 1982, has experienced an enormous surge of interest since President Trump was elected. Since November 2016, its membership increased more than seven-fold, from 6,000 to 45,000.
While Socialism seems to be losing its historic stigma in this country, there does appear to be a significant generation gap in its insurgence. In a 2015 Harvard Institute poll, a plurality of voters under 30 supported Socialism, dropping to 15% among those over 65.
Democratic Party leaders worry that talking openly about being a Socialist will make it harder to defeat Republican opponents. After all, the word "Socialist" has long been wielded by conservatives as a slur, associated with bad things in history.
Perhaps it would help to understand what we really are talking about.
Friday, September 28, 2018
THE 25TH AMENDMENT UNDERSCORES DYNAMIC STABILITY OF OUR CONSTITUTION
On September 5th, during the same week that Robert Woodward's book "Fear: Trump in the White House" was being promoted, The New York Times published an anonymous opinion piece entitled: " I Am Part of the Resistance inside the Trump Administration." The essay was attributed to a "senior official working for the Trump administration," criticize Trump, and stated that many members of the administration deliberately disobeyed or ignored suggestions and orders for the good of the country. The author wrote: "The root of the problem is the President's amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Fairly common-place criticism frequently uttered by the opposition to the current administration. However, what seemed more intriguing was the assertion that some cabinet members during the early days of the administration discussed invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to our Constitution in order to remove the President from power.
Predictably, politicians on all sides expressed their opinions about their relative desire to or the feasibility of using this constitutional tool to unseat our current President. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, told CNN: "If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, they should invoke the 25th Amendment. They can't have it both ways. Either they think the President is not capable of doing his job, in which case they follow the rules in the Constitution, or they feel that the President is capable of doing his job, in which case they follow what the President tells them to do." The Federalist's political writer David Harsanyi responded to the op-ed by opining: "The notion that the bureaucratic class in Washington should dictate which policies presidents are allowed to advocate simply by ignoring their wishes sounds a lot like a soft coup than a constitutionally principled resistance." Meanwhile, the White House appeared to be more concerned with uncovering the identity of the author than in discussing the essay's content. With all of this going on, the casual observer might justifiable ask: What exactly is the 25th Amendment to our Constitution, and how might it apply to the perceived situation at hand?
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was proposed in Congress during the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and was intended to clarify the succession process for the President or Vice President in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation. The amendment was sent to the states on July 6, 1965, and was adopted February 10, 1967. The amendment consists of 4 sections. The first three cover how succession is to be handled . This issue was left unclear and imprecise in the original Constitution. Until the adoption of the 25th Amendment succession of a President stipulated that the Vice President would take over as "Acting President" until the elected President could resume his (or her) duties, or until a new President was elected. If neither President or Vice President could do the President's job, Congress would decide who takes over. The first three sections clarify and formalize this process.
The critical section enumerated in the anonymous op-ed is section 4. It states: "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers of the office as Acting President." The President can subsequently transmit written declaration that no inability exists, and resume powers and duties. Within four days the VP et al can restate their earlier transmissions, after which Congress would need to agree by a 2/3 vote. When it does, the VP will continue a Acting President.
Section 4 of the Amendment is both he most interesting and most difficult section to apply. It covers a case of inability when the President cannot or refuses to declare his own inability. Mid 20th century lawmakers anticipated a President whose instability might amount to disability. Multiple times during our history situations developed that could have fir the parameters of this section . James Garfield was bedridden after he was shot, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in October of 1919, which was effectively hidden from the public, Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955 and a stroke in 1957, yet no attempt was made to remove any of them from office. In fact, section 4 has never been used. It was contemplated twice after the 1981 assassinated attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Given the sentiment displayed in the September 5 op-ed it should be noted that it was clear from the debates at the time of adoption and ratification that "unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment and laziness do not constitute an "inability" within the meaning of the amendment." (Jon Meacham, "Could the 25th Amendment be Trump's Downfall," Time , Jan 26, 2018.)
For all the hype and political grandstanding, the consensus seems to be that since the invocation of section 4 of the 25th Amendment requires buy-in from the Vice President, the majority of Trump appointed cabinet members, and 2/3 of the Republican controlled Congress, the entire concept is a non starter. Ultimately, we should also recognize that our Constitution incorporates , what I would call, dynamic stability. It allows us potential remedies for perceived grievances, but it won't be manipulated by political whim. Forcibly removing a President is a destabilizing event. Neither impeachment, nor invoking the 25thAmendment involve processes that can easily accomplish the intended result. Either might be used to release political steam. However, because of built in safeguards, neither has ever been used successfully. Deliberately or not, our Founders implied that the voting booth remains the most secure democratic vehicle to affect desired change.
Predictably, politicians on all sides expressed their opinions about their relative desire to or the feasibility of using this constitutional tool to unseat our current President. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a potential presidential candidate in 2020, told CNN: "If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, they should invoke the 25th Amendment. They can't have it both ways. Either they think the President is not capable of doing his job, in which case they follow the rules in the Constitution, or they feel that the President is capable of doing his job, in which case they follow what the President tells them to do." The Federalist's political writer David Harsanyi responded to the op-ed by opining: "The notion that the bureaucratic class in Washington should dictate which policies presidents are allowed to advocate simply by ignoring their wishes sounds a lot like a soft coup than a constitutionally principled resistance." Meanwhile, the White House appeared to be more concerned with uncovering the identity of the author than in discussing the essay's content. With all of this going on, the casual observer might justifiable ask: What exactly is the 25th Amendment to our Constitution, and how might it apply to the perceived situation at hand?
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was proposed in Congress during the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and was intended to clarify the succession process for the President or Vice President in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation. The amendment was sent to the states on July 6, 1965, and was adopted February 10, 1967. The amendment consists of 4 sections. The first three cover how succession is to be handled . This issue was left unclear and imprecise in the original Constitution. Until the adoption of the 25th Amendment succession of a President stipulated that the Vice President would take over as "Acting President" until the elected President could resume his (or her) duties, or until a new President was elected. If neither President or Vice President could do the President's job, Congress would decide who takes over. The first three sections clarify and formalize this process.
The critical section enumerated in the anonymous op-ed is section 4. It states: "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers of the office as Acting President." The President can subsequently transmit written declaration that no inability exists, and resume powers and duties. Within four days the VP et al can restate their earlier transmissions, after which Congress would need to agree by a 2/3 vote. When it does, the VP will continue a Acting President.
Section 4 of the Amendment is both he most interesting and most difficult section to apply. It covers a case of inability when the President cannot or refuses to declare his own inability. Mid 20th century lawmakers anticipated a President whose instability might amount to disability. Multiple times during our history situations developed that could have fir the parameters of this section . James Garfield was bedridden after he was shot, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in October of 1919, which was effectively hidden from the public, Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in 1955 and a stroke in 1957, yet no attempt was made to remove any of them from office. In fact, section 4 has never been used. It was contemplated twice after the 1981 assassinated attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Given the sentiment displayed in the September 5 op-ed it should be noted that it was clear from the debates at the time of adoption and ratification that "unpopularity, incompetence, impeachable conduct, poor judgment and laziness do not constitute an "inability" within the meaning of the amendment." (Jon Meacham, "Could the 25th Amendment be Trump's Downfall," Time , Jan 26, 2018.)
For all the hype and political grandstanding, the consensus seems to be that since the invocation of section 4 of the 25th Amendment requires buy-in from the Vice President, the majority of Trump appointed cabinet members, and 2/3 of the Republican controlled Congress, the entire concept is a non starter. Ultimately, we should also recognize that our Constitution incorporates , what I would call, dynamic stability. It allows us potential remedies for perceived grievances, but it won't be manipulated by political whim. Forcibly removing a President is a destabilizing event. Neither impeachment, nor invoking the 25thAmendment involve processes that can easily accomplish the intended result. Either might be used to release political steam. However, because of built in safeguards, neither has ever been used successfully. Deliberately or not, our Founders implied that the voting booth remains the most secure democratic vehicle to affect desired change.
Friday, September 7, 2018
THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS SHOULD NOT RESEMBLE GROWING MUSHROOMS
In 1787 our Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in order to create a government that would be ruled by the people instead of by them. A cornerstone of this effort was the expressed need for systemic transparency and the unique privilege and responsibility of every citizen to be informed and engaged. The First Amendment to our Constitution intended to help accomplish this. In addition to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, this amendment features "freedom of the press," which mean that citizens are allowed to circulate opinions in print without government censorship. Thomas Jefferson characteristically opined: "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
In 1766, twenty-five years before the passage of our First Amendment, the Swedish parliament became the first to pass a: "Freedom of the Press Act," abolishing the Swedish government's role as a censor of printed matter, and allowing official actions of the government to be made public. The concept of press freedom did not really become an issue until the 15th century when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, enabling the mass production of books, newspapers, and other publications, which facilitated the spread of ideas faster an farther than ever before. Since some of these ideas tended to challenge official power structures, countless political and religious authorities actively suppressed publications they deemed subversive. (Britannica. com.) In the ensuing tug of war between those who insisted on controlling content and context of disseminated information, and those arguing that a free press was indispensable for people to stay informed an participate in a democracy, its influence has had much to do with the ultimate system of government countries adopted.
While autocrats favor controlling the flow and interpretation of information, democratic societies continue to stand behind freedom of the press, be it sometimes uncomfortably. They argue that: "The transparency that journalism brings to events makes government work better, decreases the risk of corruption, and ultimately makes our nation safer." (Linda A. Klein, "A free press is necessary for a strong democracy," ABA Journal, May 2017." Thy ideologically agree with Jefferson that: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost."
While the invention of the printing press led to a revolutionary increase in the spread of ideas, the growth of social media has prompted a vastly more sweeping growth of information technology and dissemination. Today unfiltered thoughts and ideas can be communicated to millions of recipients within minutes. Autocratic systems are finding ways of controlling flow, an subverting content. In democratic systems this is legally more difficult. Where desired, unfavorable press is often attacked by belittling its content, and identifying its substance as "fake news," as, supposedly, contrasted with official news.
Fake news, or deliberate misinformation, has been around for centuries. It is often indistinguishable from propaganda, as openly used by the Nazis, Communists and Fascists under the guise of "public enlightenment." More recently our own governmen5 has routinely confronted much of the nation's press with accusations of creating "fake news" as well, particularly when the disseminated information does not favor our president. The intent appears to be to undermine the veracity of criticism of the administration's policies and proposals, to substitute and obscure verifiable facts, and replace them with alternative facts.
To be fair, many residents have had contentious a contentious relationship with the press. Such are the trappings of a healthy democracy. However, the current administration has elevated its distaste for the legitimate press by being blatantly vitriolic. It regressed from characterizing unfavorable press as "fake news" to demonizing unfriendly media as the "enemy of the people," a term introduced by Joseph Stalin almost a century ago for the purpose of annihilating individuals who disagreed with him. Donald Trump, at his rallies, has made a point of identifying journalists as "horrible, horrendous people." His objective has clearly been to silence unfavorable ideas and conceal inconvenient reporting.
Trump's barrage of media attacks has had a measurable effect on the Republican Party. By the end of last year, just fourteen percent of Republicans said they still trusted the media. (John Cassidy, "How to counter Donald Trump's War on the Media," The New Yorker, August 3, 208.) Trump's announcement: "Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news... what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening," is shockingly reflective of a key point made by George Orwell in "1984:" "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
To quote Thomas Jefferson again: "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know, nor notice, its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." (1792).
Any self-respecting flourishing democracy embraces freedom of the press. In fact, it can't exist without it. Authoritarian regimes know that their survival depends on operating without the eyes and ears of the press upon them. In trying to undermine news coverage, President Trump is attempting to enjoy the same luxury. (John Diaz, SF Chronicle, July 29, 2018). As the sociologist DaShanne Stokes has pointed out: "Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness."
Our democracy will not survive or grow by feeding people B.S. and keeping them in the dark. That's how you grow mushrooms.
In 1766, twenty-five years before the passage of our First Amendment, the Swedish parliament became the first to pass a: "Freedom of the Press Act," abolishing the Swedish government's role as a censor of printed matter, and allowing official actions of the government to be made public. The concept of press freedom did not really become an issue until the 15th century when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, enabling the mass production of books, newspapers, and other publications, which facilitated the spread of ideas faster an farther than ever before. Since some of these ideas tended to challenge official power structures, countless political and religious authorities actively suppressed publications they deemed subversive. (Britannica. com.) In the ensuing tug of war between those who insisted on controlling content and context of disseminated information, and those arguing that a free press was indispensable for people to stay informed an participate in a democracy, its influence has had much to do with the ultimate system of government countries adopted.
While autocrats favor controlling the flow and interpretation of information, democratic societies continue to stand behind freedom of the press, be it sometimes uncomfortably. They argue that: "The transparency that journalism brings to events makes government work better, decreases the risk of corruption, and ultimately makes our nation safer." (Linda A. Klein, "A free press is necessary for a strong democracy," ABA Journal, May 2017." Thy ideologically agree with Jefferson that: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost."
While the invention of the printing press led to a revolutionary increase in the spread of ideas, the growth of social media has prompted a vastly more sweeping growth of information technology and dissemination. Today unfiltered thoughts and ideas can be communicated to millions of recipients within minutes. Autocratic systems are finding ways of controlling flow, an subverting content. In democratic systems this is legally more difficult. Where desired, unfavorable press is often attacked by belittling its content, and identifying its substance as "fake news," as, supposedly, contrasted with official news.
Fake news, or deliberate misinformation, has been around for centuries. It is often indistinguishable from propaganda, as openly used by the Nazis, Communists and Fascists under the guise of "public enlightenment." More recently our own governmen5 has routinely confronted much of the nation's press with accusations of creating "fake news" as well, particularly when the disseminated information does not favor our president. The intent appears to be to undermine the veracity of criticism of the administration's policies and proposals, to substitute and obscure verifiable facts, and replace them with alternative facts.
To be fair, many residents have had contentious a contentious relationship with the press. Such are the trappings of a healthy democracy. However, the current administration has elevated its distaste for the legitimate press by being blatantly vitriolic. It regressed from characterizing unfavorable press as "fake news" to demonizing unfriendly media as the "enemy of the people," a term introduced by Joseph Stalin almost a century ago for the purpose of annihilating individuals who disagreed with him. Donald Trump, at his rallies, has made a point of identifying journalists as "horrible, horrendous people." His objective has clearly been to silence unfavorable ideas and conceal inconvenient reporting.
Trump's barrage of media attacks has had a measurable effect on the Republican Party. By the end of last year, just fourteen percent of Republicans said they still trusted the media. (John Cassidy, "How to counter Donald Trump's War on the Media," The New Yorker, August 3, 208.) Trump's announcement: "Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news... what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening," is shockingly reflective of a key point made by George Orwell in "1984:" "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
To quote Thomas Jefferson again: "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know, nor notice, its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." (1792).
Any self-respecting flourishing democracy embraces freedom of the press. In fact, it can't exist without it. Authoritarian regimes know that their survival depends on operating without the eyes and ears of the press upon them. In trying to undermine news coverage, President Trump is attempting to enjoy the same luxury. (John Diaz, SF Chronicle, July 29, 2018). As the sociologist DaShanne Stokes has pointed out: "Fascism thrives in obscurity and darkness."
Our democracy will not survive or grow by feeding people B.S. and keeping them in the dark. That's how you grow mushrooms.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
WILL TRUMP BE COMPLICIT IN DISMANTLING NATO?
In April of 1949 the United States and 11 Western European countries signed an agreement establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. The most significant clause in this treaty was "Article 5," in which signatories agreed that "an armed attack against one or more of them.... shall be considered an attack against them all." Following such an attack each ally would take "such action as it (considered) necessary, including the use of armed force". In retaliation, in 1955, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite states formed the Warsaw Pact. Aside from the USSR, this group included Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. Fast forward 70 plus year, after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet empire, all of these former satellite states are now part of NATO, a significant thorn in the side of Russia's current autocratic leader Vladimir Putin.
Putin, a foreign intelligence Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB for 16 years, has effectively run the Russian government ever since President Boris Yeltsin appointed him on August 9, 1999. He continues to articulate his disenchantment with Russia's diminishing strategic power and influence vis-Ã -vis NATO and the European Union, and he has been vocal about what he considers to be an existential threat to his country from these two organizations. He is dedicated to weakening the EU and undermining the NATO military alliance to extend his power and potentially recover a hegemonic role for Russia. In his mind the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The fact that 10 formerly Communist states joined the EU rubbed additional salt into Russian wounds. As a former KGB puppet master Putin initiated subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on his adversaries.
It should be understood that nothing significant emerging from Russia happens without Putin's consent. In 2007, Estonia, which with six other Eastern European nations joined NATO in 2004, suffered a crippling cyber attack, essentially shutting down the entire country, solely because, contrary to explicit warnings emanating from Moscow, it removed a Soviet WWII memorial from its capital's downtown. In 2008, after Georgia expressed an interest in joining NATO, Russia invaded its provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ultimately declaring them independent states, and regrouping them under the Russian umbrella. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Later that year, the 53rd Anti Aircraft Rocket Brigade of the Russian Federation shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over rebel territory in Ukraine, killing all 298 on board. In 2016 Russia plotted to overthrow Montenegro's government and assassinate its Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, to sabotage that country's plan to join NATO, something they did a year later anyway. That same year, allegedly with support of the Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB, and the GRU, the military intelligence service, Russia effectively meddled in the British "Brexit" referendum, supporting the "leave" campaign headed up by Nigel Farrage. Subsequent Russian interference in the U.S. and French elections has also been well established. In the meantime dozens of Putin's critics died violently or disappeared altogether. Boris Nemtsov - shot in the back in front of the Kremlin, Alexander Litvinenko - poisoned with Polonium 210, and Sergei Magnitsky - killed in prison, are cases in point. In short, Vladimir Putin will stop at nothing to accomplish his objectives. He is the consummate professional KGB officer, accomplished puppet master, a merciless killer, and no friend of the West.
President Trump's open skepticism of NATO, its continued relevance, and the viability of "Article 5" of its charter, mouthing Russia's talking points, is playing into Putin's hands. During an interview on Fox News Trump explicitly questioned why an American would have to defend a small country like Montenegro, which is more than 5,000 miles away. Qualifying and conditioning the notion of NATO's defense guarantee is a major step towards abandoning it. The only time in history when the Article 5 guarantee was invoked was after 9/11. Our allies sent tens of thousands of troops to fight alongside Americans in Afghanistan, spent tens of billions of dollars, and suffered more than 1,000 casualties in defense of an ally. Georgia and Ukraine were invaded with impunity, without eliciting military retaliation, because they did not belong to the NATO alliance.
After Trump's private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, and subsequent to his submissive participation in their press conference, patriots on both sides of the political aisle, and most of our allies who stood by us for 70 plus years, questioned U.S. bias and commitment after the president publicly challenged the veracity of his own intelligence experts while chastising NATO and branding the EU a "foe," again effectively doing Putin's bidding. Former CIA director and career intelligence officer John Brennan tweeted that Trump's performance in Helsinki "rises to and exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Nothing short of treasonous," while calling his comments "imbecilic, wholly in the pocket of Putin." Rumor has it that one of the items the two leaders agreed to is that Georgia and Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO. Not entirely unexpectedly, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that the summit results were "better than super," while our own senior staff appeared reticent about discussing the meeting's content at all.
By tweeting that: "Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of US foolishness and stupidity, and now the Rigged Witch Hunt," (sic), Donald Trump either reflects ignorance, is gullible, or somehow beholden to the Russian dictator. As Charles de Gaulle, and numerous others following him, remarked: "No nation has friends, only interests." If Trump insists on inviting Putin to DC this fall, we are essentially bringing the KGB into the White House, the inner sanctum of our democracy. In some sense we are encountering a scene from a play detailing the onset of our revolution. The composite intelligence services play Paul Revere, screaming: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming." Unfortunately, someone also needs to play the role of Benedict Arnold.....
Putin, a foreign intelligence Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB for 16 years, has effectively run the Russian government ever since President Boris Yeltsin appointed him on August 9, 1999. He continues to articulate his disenchantment with Russia's diminishing strategic power and influence vis-Ã -vis NATO and the European Union, and he has been vocal about what he considers to be an existential threat to his country from these two organizations. He is dedicated to weakening the EU and undermining the NATO military alliance to extend his power and potentially recover a hegemonic role for Russia. In his mind the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The fact that 10 formerly Communist states joined the EU rubbed additional salt into Russian wounds. As a former KGB puppet master Putin initiated subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on his adversaries.
It should be understood that nothing significant emerging from Russia happens without Putin's consent. In 2007, Estonia, which with six other Eastern European nations joined NATO in 2004, suffered a crippling cyber attack, essentially shutting down the entire country, solely because, contrary to explicit warnings emanating from Moscow, it removed a Soviet WWII memorial from its capital's downtown. In 2008, after Georgia expressed an interest in joining NATO, Russia invaded its provinces Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ultimately declaring them independent states, and regrouping them under the Russian umbrella. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula. Later that year, the 53rd Anti Aircraft Rocket Brigade of the Russian Federation shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over rebel territory in Ukraine, killing all 298 on board. In 2016 Russia plotted to overthrow Montenegro's government and assassinate its Prime Minister, Milo Djukanovic, to sabotage that country's plan to join NATO, something they did a year later anyway. That same year, allegedly with support of the Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB, and the GRU, the military intelligence service, Russia effectively meddled in the British "Brexit" referendum, supporting the "leave" campaign headed up by Nigel Farrage. Subsequent Russian interference in the U.S. and French elections has also been well established. In the meantime dozens of Putin's critics died violently or disappeared altogether. Boris Nemtsov - shot in the back in front of the Kremlin, Alexander Litvinenko - poisoned with Polonium 210, and Sergei Magnitsky - killed in prison, are cases in point. In short, Vladimir Putin will stop at nothing to accomplish his objectives. He is the consummate professional KGB officer, accomplished puppet master, a merciless killer, and no friend of the West.
President Trump's open skepticism of NATO, its continued relevance, and the viability of "Article 5" of its charter, mouthing Russia's talking points, is playing into Putin's hands. During an interview on Fox News Trump explicitly questioned why an American would have to defend a small country like Montenegro, which is more than 5,000 miles away. Qualifying and conditioning the notion of NATO's defense guarantee is a major step towards abandoning it. The only time in history when the Article 5 guarantee was invoked was after 9/11. Our allies sent tens of thousands of troops to fight alongside Americans in Afghanistan, spent tens of billions of dollars, and suffered more than 1,000 casualties in defense of an ally. Georgia and Ukraine were invaded with impunity, without eliciting military retaliation, because they did not belong to the NATO alliance.
After Trump's private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, and subsequent to his submissive participation in their press conference, patriots on both sides of the political aisle, and most of our allies who stood by us for 70 plus years, questioned U.S. bias and commitment after the president publicly challenged the veracity of his own intelligence experts while chastising NATO and branding the EU a "foe," again effectively doing Putin's bidding. Former CIA director and career intelligence officer John Brennan tweeted that Trump's performance in Helsinki "rises to and exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Nothing short of treasonous," while calling his comments "imbecilic, wholly in the pocket of Putin." Rumor has it that one of the items the two leaders agreed to is that Georgia and Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO. Not entirely unexpectedly, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that the summit results were "better than super," while our own senior staff appeared reticent about discussing the meeting's content at all.
By tweeting that: "Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of US foolishness and stupidity, and now the Rigged Witch Hunt," (sic), Donald Trump either reflects ignorance, is gullible, or somehow beholden to the Russian dictator. As Charles de Gaulle, and numerous others following him, remarked: "No nation has friends, only interests." If Trump insists on inviting Putin to DC this fall, we are essentially bringing the KGB into the White House, the inner sanctum of our democracy. In some sense we are encountering a scene from a play detailing the onset of our revolution. The composite intelligence services play Paul Revere, screaming: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming." Unfortunately, someone also needs to play the role of Benedict Arnold.....
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE ABYSS
Donald Trump is frustrated, suffering from a severe dose of "relative deprivation," the conscious experience of a negative discrepancy between his expectations and political reality. Trump is frustrated in part because he has been unable to secure funding for his signature campaign issue of building a wall along the length of our southern border. Mexico won't pay for it, and Congress has not been able to secure the votes to do so either. Given this reality, it is not difficult to imagine that Mr. Trump, with assistance of his senior advisor Stephen Miller, a former aide to then Senator Jeff Sessions, and well known for echoing white supremacist and anti-immigrant viewpoints, would conjure up a strategy intended to create a hostage situation designed to shame Democrats into helping move a Republican backed immigration measure across the line in Congress.
On April 6 Trump issued a memorandum ending "catch and release" at the border, a practice which releases illegal immigrants from detention while they wait for their immigration court hearing. He directed Homeland Security, the Justice and Defense departments to come up with measures they would be able to take to end this practice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions subsequently ordered federal prosecutors to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy. A month later he clarified what he really meant: "If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border." Six week later 2,300 plus kids had been separated from their parents, interred into wire cages, forced to sleep on concrete floors, housed in warehouses and internment camps reminiscent of conditions that existed in the camps Japanese-Americans were forced into during World War II. To avoid transparency, the press and elected representatives were denied access to these hastily erected internment facilities.
As the reality of this process became clear, its consequences quickly generated overwhelming critique from every corner of the country, and from the world at large. The 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council, which began its latest session on June 18 with a broadside against Mr. Trump's immigration policy by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, called the policy of separating children from parents crossing the southern border illegal and unconscionable. The next day the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the council.
Instead of immigration reform, kids in cages, considered child abuse by many, became the focus for politicians of both parties, people from all faiths from the Vatican on down, and from all First Ladies still living. While acting like ventriloquist dummies, A.G. Jeff Sessions, and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, remained unapologetic in their support of Trump's policy. Sessions justified his decision to separate families by citing a biblical admonishment from Apostle Paul in Romans 13 to "obey the law of the government, because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." In response, more than 600 clergy and lay members of the United Methodist Church, to which Sessions belongs, signed a letter opposing his viewpoint. In the mean time Trump doubled and tripled down on this policy, blaming Democrats for the problem. "They don't care about crime, and want illegal immigrants to pour into and infest our country, like M.S. - 13" [sic].
Trump, Sessions, Nielsen and other apologists continued their bombastic lies as international pressure mounted. Comparisons to Nazi-Germany's forcible removal of 400,000 children from their parents, and Putin's goons arresting kids first at anti-Putin rallies, began to surface regularly. Democratic leaders lamented that taking children from their parents was a form of state terror, and that hostage taking was one of the most effective tools of terror most of us never thought we would see an American administration implement. Trump finally appeared to back down and signed a Presidential Executive Order nominally halting the practice, a political document entirely unnecessary and still lacking clarification and follow-through. A day later the president followed up by featuring an event in the White House rose garden callously showing off families who were "permanently separated" from their children killed by illegal aliens. A few days later he proposed to deport asylum seekers immediately after crossing the border without extending to them their legal right to due process.
None of this should have surprised us. Donald Trump feels the need to project strength without restraint. He routinely indicates that he prefers "strong" autocratic leaders over our "meek, dishonest and weak" traditional democratic allies. His new-found friend Kim Jong Un, China's Xi Jinping, Egypt's Fatah al-Sissi, Turkish Erdogan, Russia's Putin and others appear to have more what our president looks for in a leader. Not surprisingly, none of these criticized him about his stance on immigration. While Trump refers to illegal immigrants as vermin infesting our country, they routinely and openly dehumanize migrants and other irritants as well. In the president's mind compassion and empathy are signs of weakness. He won't acknowledge that those are character traits that actually make us human. Given the chance, it would not be much of a stretch to imagine him rubbing shoulders with Hitler and Mussolini.
His relentless attacks on the free press, his disregard and disrespect for our laws and democratic institutions, even suggesting that he is above the law and could pardon himself, unilateral withdrawal from international agreements, and his perpetual lies leading up to and surrounding this disgraceful episode, makes us wonder how close we have come to the end of rules based democratic government in our country. London's King's College instructor Angelos Chryssogelos, in a May 31, 2018 Time magazine article, warned: "Populism can indeed become a threat to democracy if populists in power undermine liberal institutions and enable illiberal democracy that can, with time, degenerate into outright electoral autocracy."
Mussolini was known for having said that "if you consolidate power by plucking a chicken one feather at a time, people won't notice." Trump is considerably less subtle, he plucks them out by the fistful. We need to pay attention. The abyss lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.
On April 6 Trump issued a memorandum ending "catch and release" at the border, a practice which releases illegal immigrants from detention while they wait for their immigration court hearing. He directed Homeland Security, the Justice and Defense departments to come up with measures they would be able to take to end this practice. Attorney General Jeff Sessions subsequently ordered federal prosecutors to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy. A month later he clarified what he really meant: "If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border." Six week later 2,300 plus kids had been separated from their parents, interred into wire cages, forced to sleep on concrete floors, housed in warehouses and internment camps reminiscent of conditions that existed in the camps Japanese-Americans were forced into during World War II. To avoid transparency, the press and elected representatives were denied access to these hastily erected internment facilities.
As the reality of this process became clear, its consequences quickly generated overwhelming critique from every corner of the country, and from the world at large. The 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council, which began its latest session on June 18 with a broadside against Mr. Trump's immigration policy by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, called the policy of separating children from parents crossing the southern border illegal and unconscionable. The next day the Trump administration announced its withdrawal from the council.
Instead of immigration reform, kids in cages, considered child abuse by many, became the focus for politicians of both parties, people from all faiths from the Vatican on down, and from all First Ladies still living. While acting like ventriloquist dummies, A.G. Jeff Sessions, and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, remained unapologetic in their support of Trump's policy. Sessions justified his decision to separate families by citing a biblical admonishment from Apostle Paul in Romans 13 to "obey the law of the government, because God has ordained them for the purpose of order." In response, more than 600 clergy and lay members of the United Methodist Church, to which Sessions belongs, signed a letter opposing his viewpoint. In the mean time Trump doubled and tripled down on this policy, blaming Democrats for the problem. "They don't care about crime, and want illegal immigrants to pour into and infest our country, like M.S. - 13" [sic].
Trump, Sessions, Nielsen and other apologists continued their bombastic lies as international pressure mounted. Comparisons to Nazi-Germany's forcible removal of 400,000 children from their parents, and Putin's goons arresting kids first at anti-Putin rallies, began to surface regularly. Democratic leaders lamented that taking children from their parents was a form of state terror, and that hostage taking was one of the most effective tools of terror most of us never thought we would see an American administration implement. Trump finally appeared to back down and signed a Presidential Executive Order nominally halting the practice, a political document entirely unnecessary and still lacking clarification and follow-through. A day later the president followed up by featuring an event in the White House rose garden callously showing off families who were "permanently separated" from their children killed by illegal aliens. A few days later he proposed to deport asylum seekers immediately after crossing the border without extending to them their legal right to due process.
None of this should have surprised us. Donald Trump feels the need to project strength without restraint. He routinely indicates that he prefers "strong" autocratic leaders over our "meek, dishonest and weak" traditional democratic allies. His new-found friend Kim Jong Un, China's Xi Jinping, Egypt's Fatah al-Sissi, Turkish Erdogan, Russia's Putin and others appear to have more what our president looks for in a leader. Not surprisingly, none of these criticized him about his stance on immigration. While Trump refers to illegal immigrants as vermin infesting our country, they routinely and openly dehumanize migrants and other irritants as well. In the president's mind compassion and empathy are signs of weakness. He won't acknowledge that those are character traits that actually make us human. Given the chance, it would not be much of a stretch to imagine him rubbing shoulders with Hitler and Mussolini.
His relentless attacks on the free press, his disregard and disrespect for our laws and democratic institutions, even suggesting that he is above the law and could pardon himself, unilateral withdrawal from international agreements, and his perpetual lies leading up to and surrounding this disgraceful episode, makes us wonder how close we have come to the end of rules based democratic government in our country. London's King's College instructor Angelos Chryssogelos, in a May 31, 2018 Time magazine article, warned: "Populism can indeed become a threat to democracy if populists in power undermine liberal institutions and enable illiberal democracy that can, with time, degenerate into outright electoral autocracy."
Mussolini was known for having said that "if you consolidate power by plucking a chicken one feather at a time, people won't notice." Trump is considerably less subtle, he plucks them out by the fistful. We need to pay attention. The abyss lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)