reflectivepundit

What to Make of Last Week’s Shocking Violence: Hate Speech Radicalizes and Violent Words Beget Violence

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When leaders like President Trump describe the would-be mail-bomber Cesar Sayoc and the synagogue mass-shooter Robert D. Bowers as wackos or crazies, they conveniently ignore how domestic terrorists just like their transnational counterparts are radicalized and prompted to translate anger and hate into actual violence.

By all reports, both men were loners, social outsiders, in search for identities by consuming, spreading, and posting themselves right-extremist propaganda and conspiracy theories on social media platforms. Both adored one particular leader—Donald Trump in the Sayoc case and Adolf Hitler in the Bowers case--, both vilified those rejecting their idols and their admired leaders’ ideologies.

If you saw the images and slogans plastered all over the Floridian bomber’s van, you got an idea of the man’s obsession with MAGA Trump propaganda and his hate for those Democrats who are most often rhetorically attacked by the president. As revealed by the Sayoc family’s lawyer, Cesar was utterly apolitical until Trump ran for the GOP presidential nomination. From then on, he embraced everything Trumpian, most of all the divisive “us” versus “them” demagoguery.

Since he had no personal contacts with Trump, the would-be bomber cultivated what social scientists have called para-social interactions with his idol who was a celebrity media personality even before moving into the political arena. Apart from the mainstream media coverage of Trump the pseudo “interactions” occurred via social media.

While for most fans such para-social interactions take place side-by-side with actual relationships, for some individuals they become their sole social life. One should remember here that the term “fan” is related to “fanatic.” When fans become obsessed with their idols, they completely commit to their admired persons’ causes. If that embrace includes rhetorical hate speech, it can lead to hate crimes or terrorism against declared evil-doers, enemies of the people.

                                                     *

Yesterday, President Trump was eager to point out that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was not a supporter of his. True, but not the whole truth! Mass shooter Browers expressed in vile social media posts his complete devotion to violent Neo-Nazi/White Supremacy ideology that during Trump’s candidacy and presidency moved from the fringe closer to or even into mainstream GOP dogma. In the process, right-extreme violence increased in the last three or so years dramatically.

Where the Pittsburgh anti-Semite differs from the bulk of right-wing extremists was seemingly the timing of the endgame: Whereas some well-known neo-Nazis/White Supremacists consider Trump not a “pure” white nationalist but a convenient vessel to bring them closer to their ultimate fight for white supremacy, mass shooter Browers did not share their patience.  

We may never know whether the present atmosphere of hate and anger, stirred by the highest level of governmental leadership, contributed to the unspeakable massacre in Pittsburgh.

We do know that the Florida bomber’s targets were all singled out and attacked by President Trump.

We also know, if there ever was a time for President Trump to show real leadership, real empathy, and real commitment to counter partisan and ideological polarization, it is now.  

President Trump’s Rhetorical Support of Violence and the Mail-Bombs: Violent Words Result in Violent Deeds

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When President Donald Trump in the fashion of a populist demagogue celebrates a congressman who assaulted a reporter for asking a perfectly legitimate question;

When candidate Trump promised to pay legal fees for his fan boys who beat up protesters at his rallies;

When the President and his disciples call for jailing political opponents;  

When the Presidents calls opponents “evil,”

Nobody should be surprised that Trump and his GOP enablers in the Congress and other high offices incite and condone violence.

Yesterday, a pipe bomb was sent to financier George Soros who supports liberal causes. Today, there are reports of possible improvised explosive devices addressed to two other persons that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked since he declared his candidacy for the highest office in the land: Ex-Secretary of State und former U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton and  Ex-President Barack Obama.

Given the President’s daily dose of lies, alternative facts, and post-truth statements combined with his attacks on Democrats/Liberals as an existential threat to the America he and his equally reactionary supporters want to recapture, nobody should be surprised when more consequential violence will follow.

Under President Trump the United States has become more and more like a banana republic.

The old children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is simply wrong.

Rhetorical attacks on individuals or groups can and do result in great harm. Hate speech can and does encourage individuals and groups to resort to violent actions against the targets of violent rhetoric.

Take the example of Dylann Roof who in 2015 shot to death nine African-Americans at the end of a bible study meeting in a Charleston, S.C., church. In his online “manifesto” he described how posted words on White Supremacy web sites had awoken his racial awareness and convinced him to move from mere words of violence to actual deeds. Since others did not act, he wrote, he had to...

By declaring himself a “nationalist” the President spilled the beans. His ideology is the same as that of those alt-right ideologues, nativists, and racists that marched in Charlottesville. The President’s divisive propaganda at each of his campaign rallies emboldens the violent characters on the extreme right further.

Just think of the members of far right hate-group Proud Boys that brutally attack the political opposition and seem reminiscent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts and Mussolini’s Black Shirts.

What will happen on Election Day and thereafter?

What Donald Trump Can Learn from George Washington’s and John Adam’s Problems with the Press

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Donald Trump, as candidate and far more as the 45^th US President, has relentlessly attacked news media and individuals therein for reporting critically on his and his administration’s politics and policies.

Reporting that the president does not like becomes “fake” news in White House jargon.

Trump has threatened to change the libel laws, presumably having the Supreme Court overturn the New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling that makes it next to impossible for public figures to prevail in libel actions against news organizations.

Trump should read a history book to get some sense of previous presidents’ experiences with the press. He would first of all learn that some earlier presidents had a much harder time with the press than he ever could imagine.

A good time to look at would be the 1790s and the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, both Federalists who were vilified constantly by the Republican presses of their times.

The most influential Republican (Anti-Federalist) paper was the Aurora in Philadelphia published and edited by Benjamin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, who hired writers like William Duane and James Callender.

Bache and his newspaper, more than any other Republican newsman and press, were constant thorns in both presidents’ hide.

Bache described President George Washington’s “comportment as ‘that of a monarch,’ his governance as the ‘apish mimickry of kingship,’ his ‘pompous carriages, splendid feasts, and tawdry gowns’ and his encouragement of the public celebration of his birthday.”

Since Bache’s Aurora was very influential in that it informed the content of many other Republican newspapers around the country, Washington war quite upset—but instead of publicly venting his feeling, he did so in conversations with and letters to friends.

In one letter, Washington wrote,  “If you read the Aurora of this city…you cannot but have perceived with what malignant industry, and persevering falsehoods I am assailed, in order to weaken, if not destroy, the confidence of the Public.”  

After George Washington died, the Aurora commented,

“If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington.

If ever a nation has suffered from the improper influence of a man, the American nation has suffered from the influence of Washington.

If ever a nation has been deceived by a man, the American nation has been deceived by Washington.”

The unpresidential President: Are there Limits to Trump’s Character Flaws and his Alternative Truth?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When the man holding the highest office in our land displays publicly a deficit in basic human values and in positive character traits, this should not sit well with all of us—regardless of partisan and ideological preferences. While Donald Trump exhibits such a deficit day-in and day-out—particular in his Twitter feeds, he highlighted yesterday his ethical bankruptcy in the most regrettable ways:

As he celebrated the adoption of the "John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act" during his visit at Fort Drum in upstate New York, he thanked a number of individuals but never mentioned the US Senator of Arizona. Instead, he called the new law “National Defense Authorization Act” dropping the Senator’s name included by Congress in honor of McCain who is fighting brain cancer. Unable to forget his political differences with the old war hero, Trump attacked him at his next stop—a fundraising event—again without naming McCain. But everybody knew what he meant when he referred to Obamacare and said, "I would've gotten rid of everything, but as you know, one of our wonderful senators had thumbs down at 2 o'clock in the morning.” 

I can’t think of more unpresidential behavior—apart from his on-bended-knees performance at the Helsinki “summit” and the press conference with Vladimir Putin.

That the 45. President is a pathological liar is well documented. Yesterday, for example, he tweeted that “the very unpopular Governor of Ohio (and failed presidential candidate) @JohnKasich hurt Troy Balderson’s recent win by tamping down enthusiasm for an otherwise great candidate…” The truth is that the last available opinion poll of June this year showed a 52% approval for Kasich compared to a 43% approval for Trump!

More importantly, there seem to be signs that the one-time reality TV star and shock jock may not get away with murder (as he has bragged) forever.  

A just published CNN poll revealed the following:

55 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation vs. 34 percent who approve.

56 percent say Trump has interfered with the investigation, only 38 percent who say he has not.

70 percent say Trump should testify to Mueller, 25 percent who say he should not.

57 percent say Trump knew about contacts between his campaign operatives and Russians, only 36 percent who say he did not.

These results indicate that there are some cracks even in Trump’s base. Thus, there is now some hope that alternative truth and alternative facts cannot trump actual truth and actual facts forever.

Warning to Progressive Democrats: The Devil is in the Name

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When activists of the Netroots Nation met the other day in New Orleans  to discuss their strategies for the 2018 mid-term and the 2020 presidential elections, they heard from several potential presidential contenders of the Democratic Party—among them Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. But it was Cynthia Nixon, a challenger of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s reelection bid from the left, who addressed the controversial “s” word for socialist.

Nixon appealed to the progressive crowd not to shy away from the “democratic socialist” label or their agenda. “Republicans call us socialists no matter what,” she said.

The problem is, however, that the devil is in the name. And the “s” word for socialist does not sit well with Democrats and Independents either. While most Americans would be hard pressed to define the term, there is no love lost when it comes to socialism that tends to be equated with communism.

So, progressive leaders from Bernie Sanders to Cynthia Nixon and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and progressive activists everywhere drop the label “socialism” and replace it with a more benign and actually more fitting “s” word --social.  

Call yourself Social Democrats, call your agenda social, call your distinct partisan wing “Social Democrats of America” (different from your current name Democratic Socialists of America).

Your agenda is social—health care and education for all, living wages, environmental protection, human rights for asylum seekers and immigrants, and so much more of what you find in Western Europe’s comparable democracies. Most, if not all of what Progressives here fight for has long been adopted in EU countries—most of all a social safety net for everyone.

So, again, the devil is in the name. Keep the letter “s” but change the word to social!