I recently got into a somewhat heated exchange with two friends over my equating of Trump with Hitler. For the record I must state that neither of them are Trump supporters. One is a staunch Democrat and Hillary supporter and the other a Libertarian with Republican leanings, but as I mentioned, aggressively anti-Trump.
To be fair my foray into the comparison was predicated on an article I had read (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/michel-houellebecq-und-der-untergang-des-abendlandes-13373949.html). The article was actually an analysis of Michel Houellebecq's novel "Submission" in conjunction with Oswald Spengler's "The Decline of the West".
What got the exchange started was my quoting Spengler's "Caesarisim"- his theory that democracies are susceptible to populism and as such subject to an inherent tendency to dictatorship. Spengler was writing in 1918 and his hypothesis found its realization in Hitler and Mussolini.
That is when the discussion went ballistic.
How could I possibly compare Trump to Hitler? He would never murder 6 million people.
That was my mistake. Hitler was an extreme version of autocracy. They were right. I am unsure how far Trump will go in his pursuit of power. To equate him with Hitler is somewhat disingenuous on my part. It moves the discussion from the rational to the emotional.
So I will rephrase my statement.
The United States is at a tipping point. We are closer than at any other time in our history to fall prey to a populist with autocratic ambitions that could dismantle our democratic institutions and replace them with a dictatorship in all but name. To resist this temptation takes a person of staunch republican values. Someone who recognizes the limits of power as proscribed under the constitution. And someone with the moral fibre and integrity to understand that the office of the presidency is not a platform for personal aggrandizement but rather an almost sacred seat from which one rules for the benefit of the nation.
Trump has done nothing to demonstrate that even if he were aware of the intellectual, personal and moral discipline required to maintain the presidency that he would submit his own ego and narcissism to the requirements of the office.
So I was wrong to compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler is but one in a long line of despots who rode into power on the coattails of some semblance of a democratic process and then systematically destroyed that very same process to wrest absolute power for themselves.
The founding fathers were fully aware that they were on the cusp of something not really ever seen before. They were following on from the ideas of the Enlightenment where the concept of the rights of mankind were understood and well defined. They were creating a land where personal freedoms would be protected by law and where the power of the people would be measured and moderated in a representative government that itself would be controlled by a series of checks and balances intended to guard against absolutism.
But these checks and balances were predicated on a statement, while fraught with all sorts of baggage given the position of the Native Americans, slaves and women just to name a few, still sang out: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Let me repeat that. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...".
They don't require any further discussion. They were written to explain why they were declaring their independence from absolutism. They were planning to put in its place a system predicated on the rule of law with a rash of freedoms enshrined in the document by which they would rule.
One of the things I kept hearing during the presidential campaign was that in the separation of the judicial, legislative and executive offices we have a carefully crafted system of checks and balances that would keep Trump in check.
I have seen nothing to suggest this is happening.
I also heard after the election that Trump was elected and it was his responsibility to fulfill his mandate granted by that electorate.
What everyone seems to forget is that Hitler too was elected to power. He too had a popular mandate, provided by the same barbell that catapulted Trump to power: the disaffected mob and the industrial complex.
But neither was elected to dismantle the democratic state. Neither was elected to trample over the rule of law in creating their autocracies.
Trump has entered the White House in a whirlwind.
He is following a time honored method to segue from democracy to autocracy.
Muzzle the press.
Rule by decree.
Find a scapegoat.
Dismantle the organs of government:
The Judiciary
The Intelligence Agencies
The Central Bank
Trump has declared the press the enemy. He and his staff are working hard to undermine their role as an organ of opinion and analysis and to replace them with "Alternative Facts".
Trump has essentially declared a state of national emergency, sidestepping the standard procedures of state and ruled by executive order.
Trump has declared immigrants, refugees and Muslims as all members of an undesirable group, the root of all evil, and under the mantra of national security is systematically removing whatever vestige of human rights they might have. For the record he is also going after women.
He is replacing independent "civil servants" with his own people. Trump has removed the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief of Staff from the National Security Council and has replaced them with Steve Bannon who I have not yet decided if he is Josef Goebbels or Martin Bormann. by his own admission he himself draws inspiration from Leni Riefenstahl so I can't be far off.
The next assault will be on the judiciary. It will begin with the nomination for the Supreme Court that the Republican Congress refused to even entertain under the Obama Administration.
I also expect the independence of the Federal Reserve to come under pressure when Janet Yellen's term ends in February 2018.
So perhaps I was a bit overzealous with my comparison of Trump with Hitler.
Let it please be so.
Monday 30 January 2017
Wednesday 11 January 2017
You Reap what you Sow.
Although I have not read the recent 35 page dossier published by BuzzFeed and actually think it was poor judgement to release unverifiable material somehow I can't dismiss the report out of hand.
First and foremost, according to the Politifact scorecard Trump was True 4%; Mostly True 11%; Half True 15%; Mostly False 19%; False 33% and Pants on Fire 18% of the time. This means he blatantly lied 51% of the time and was very judicious with the truth 34% of the time. For him to suddenly find religion and denounce others for lying seems very much in tune with what I would expect from Trump.
Making unverifiable accusations was meat and potatoes to his campaign, so his denouncing this dossier as lies and slander doesn't help in discovering the truth. He denounces everything he doesn't agree with as lies.
I am interested however that the material made it into a classified briefing from the intelligence agencies to the President and President-Elect. I am sure the intelligence community sees a lot of bizarre material, but I would doubt that they include it all in their briefing material.
Somewhere there must be a concern that there are at a minimum parts of this report that merit disclosure, at least at a classified security briefing. Otherwise it would have been dismissed out of hand.
Still, I think BuzzFeed was wrong to publish it. There is more than enough garbage being spewed daily by Fox News, Breitbart and the like that I would have thought BuzzFeed wouldn't want to be put into that category. They actually have lowered themselves to the level of that bastion of journalistic endeavor and one of Trump's favorite sources the National Enquirer. But that is their cross to bear.
Trump has helped introduce and relished in the post-factual age and then complains when it is turned against him.
He should grow up.
First and foremost, according to the Politifact scorecard Trump was True 4%; Mostly True 11%; Half True 15%; Mostly False 19%; False 33% and Pants on Fire 18% of the time. This means he blatantly lied 51% of the time and was very judicious with the truth 34% of the time. For him to suddenly find religion and denounce others for lying seems very much in tune with what I would expect from Trump.
Making unverifiable accusations was meat and potatoes to his campaign, so his denouncing this dossier as lies and slander doesn't help in discovering the truth. He denounces everything he doesn't agree with as lies.
I am interested however that the material made it into a classified briefing from the intelligence agencies to the President and President-Elect. I am sure the intelligence community sees a lot of bizarre material, but I would doubt that they include it all in their briefing material.
Somewhere there must be a concern that there are at a minimum parts of this report that merit disclosure, at least at a classified security briefing. Otherwise it would have been dismissed out of hand.
Still, I think BuzzFeed was wrong to publish it. There is more than enough garbage being spewed daily by Fox News, Breitbart and the like that I would have thought BuzzFeed wouldn't want to be put into that category. They actually have lowered themselves to the level of that bastion of journalistic endeavor and one of Trump's favorite sources the National Enquirer. But that is their cross to bear.
Trump has helped introduce and relished in the post-factual age and then complains when it is turned against him.
He should grow up.
Thursday 5 January 2017
Is it Treason?
Over New Year I had an interesting conversation with an M&A lawyer who is deeply concerned about President-elect Trump and that his allegiance apparently lies not with the United States but rather with the Trump empire as personified by himself.
My friend went on to discuss Trump's disregard for the establishment framing him as an anti-political agitator, indeed that he is in denial of politics itself which in essence means he is against the democratic process which is the only alternative to government by coercion and the tyranny of the majority.
This last point is important. Trump's approach is to constantly harp on about the will of the people while trampling not only on the rights of minorities but actually on the rights of the minority. Anyone who raises objections to the "will of the people" is branded as an enemy of the people.
Such an anti-democratic stance I would suggest is diametrically opposed to the Constitution which Mr Trump will be swearing to uphold on January 20 but I am also aware that it would be very difficult to prove until it is too late. What appears to me to be less difficult to prove is Trumps response to charges that Russian cyber attacks on the United States intentionally interfered with the democratic process during the election. Mr Trump has chosen to come down decidedly on the side of Wiki-Leaks and the Russian Intelligence community against the 17 US Intelligence agencies, outside cyber experts, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill and even at least one Trump adviser all expressing either misgivings or outright accusations about Russia's cyber activities in the context of the election.
The definition of Treason in Article III of the Constitution states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court". (The bold type is my own).
I would maintain that Trump is flirting with treason: I question that he indeed intends to uphold the Constitution and I feel strongly that he is adhering to enemies of the United States.
My friend went on to discuss Trump's disregard for the establishment framing him as an anti-political agitator, indeed that he is in denial of politics itself which in essence means he is against the democratic process which is the only alternative to government by coercion and the tyranny of the majority.
This last point is important. Trump's approach is to constantly harp on about the will of the people while trampling not only on the rights of minorities but actually on the rights of the minority. Anyone who raises objections to the "will of the people" is branded as an enemy of the people.
Such an anti-democratic stance I would suggest is diametrically opposed to the Constitution which Mr Trump will be swearing to uphold on January 20 but I am also aware that it would be very difficult to prove until it is too late. What appears to me to be less difficult to prove is Trumps response to charges that Russian cyber attacks on the United States intentionally interfered with the democratic process during the election. Mr Trump has chosen to come down decidedly on the side of Wiki-Leaks and the Russian Intelligence community against the 17 US Intelligence agencies, outside cyber experts, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill and even at least one Trump adviser all expressing either misgivings or outright accusations about Russia's cyber activities in the context of the election.
The definition of Treason in Article III of the Constitution states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court". (The bold type is my own).
I would maintain that Trump is flirting with treason: I question that he indeed intends to uphold the Constitution and I feel strongly that he is adhering to enemies of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)