reflectivepundit

Can America’s Democracy Survive the Onslaught by Trump and his Henchmen? Will the Press Act as Guardian of Democracy?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Shamelessly like autocratic rulers at all times President Trump spelled out what he had alluded to for some time: If his opponent Joe Biden wins the election, Mr. Trump will not leave office peacefully. Worse yet, he and his henchmen are now plotting a scheme that is to assure Trump’s victory as The Atlantic reported. Asked yesterday during a news briefing whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power [in case he would lose the election], Mr. Trump answered, “Get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful, there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”  

In other words, 40 days before election day Donald Trump America and the world that he will remain U.S. president regardless of the election results. That is what happens in dictatorships, not in democracies. But during Trump’s presidency the rules of the games have already tilted in favor of raw presidential power.

To disregard Trump’s statements as just words would be a grave mistake. Especially when coming out of the mouths of the powerful, words matter; they tend to be followed by deeds.  

Like other autocrats, Trump signals his misdeeds by tweets or public statements. Thus, he makes no secret of the reason behind his rush to appoint and seat a replacement for Justice Bader Ginsberg: He wants a full Supreme Court dominated by GOP appointed conservatives in place to rule in his favor in case of a post-election dispute.

For more than 200 years, no sitting U.S. president declared upcoming elections to be illegitimate and refused to promise a peaceful change of power in case of defeat. It took the worst president in American history to throw his nation into an existential crisis of democracy.

The issue is no longer whether Republicans or Democrats win next month’s election, the issue is whether American democracy survives the already raging onslaught by an autocratic showman and his equally ruthless supporting cast.

Since there is little hope that other Republican leaders join Senator Mitt Romney in rejecting Trump’s power play, the leading media organizations may be the last hope to act as guardians of our democracy.

But that would take an agreement to report Trump’s threat to democracy day-in and day-out as most important news. It would mean for the press not to be distracted by Trump’s daily or even hourly launched rhetorical bombs that are minor in comparison to the existential danger. It would also mean that the failures of this presidency are highlighted every day, again and again.

Especially with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic. The president ignores the more than 200,000 Americans who died so far—more than half of them because of his mismanagement and his diabolical political calculations early on that states with Democratic majorities were mostly affected by the deadly disease.

It would mean for the press to remind the public that at this point the number of coronavirus victims is 70times higher than the number of those killed during the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden, in charge of those the horrific 9/11 incidents, was called here and elsewhere in the West “evil-doer.”

I have spent much times and effort to research the central role of publicity and propaganda in terrorism and argued consistently that over-covering might well encourage more such political violence.

Concerning the coverage of President Trump now, I argue similarly that the news media must refrain from over-covering him and from reporting every aggressive and nasty word he speaks and tweets.

Instead, the news media must stick to the only matter that counts now: Most prominently reported and placed news and commentary about the existential calamity Americans faces—and must resist.

What if Terrorists Strike the United States Before the 2008 Elections?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes today that by sticking to his policy and staying the course on Iraq, “George W. Bush delivered his farewell address on Thursday evening — handing the baton, and probably the next election, to the Democrats.” He mentions David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, who has said, “In one fell swoop George Bush abdicated to [General] Petraeus, [Iraq’s Prime Minister] Maliki and the Democrats. Bush left it to Petraeus to handle the war, Maliki to handle our timetable and therefore our checkbook, and the Democrats to ultimately figure out how to end this.” With respect to making the Iraq War Petraeus’s war, retired General Wesley Clark writes perceptively, “shame on political leaders who would hide behind their top generals. It was hard not to catch a whiff of that during last week's hearings. The Constitution, however, is not ambivalent about where the responsibility for command lies -- the president is the commander in chief.” But it is with respect to  “handing the baton” to the Democrats that Friedman raises the most interesting questions: “While Mr. Bush’s tacit resignation last week greatly increases the odds of a Democratic victory in 2008, there are several wild cards that could change things: a miraculous turnaround in Iraq (unlikely, but you can always hope), a terrorist attack in America, a coup in Pakistan that puts loose nukes in the hands of Islamist radicals, or a recession induced by the meltdown in the U.S. mortgage market, which as forces a stark choice between bailing out Baghdad or Chicago.”

Mr. Friedman’s inclusion of “a terrorist attack in America” in his list of events or developments likely to decrease the odds of Democrats winning the White House next year is not far-fetched. After all, since the 444-day long Iran Hostage Crisis (1970-81) Republicans have managed to convince the majority of Americans most of the time that Democrats are soft on terrorism and defense. The current occupants of the White House, especially Vice-President Cheney and his advisers, and their ideological brethrens in the Congress and elsewhere have been tireless in magnifying this perception—regardless of reality that the more and more lethal incidents of terrorism against U.S. targets occurred under Republican presidents.

Rudy Giuliani: Neo-Conservatives’ Dream Candidate

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In spite of his opportunistic turns and twists, Rudolph (Rudy) W. Giuliani remains a moderate on social issues which are most important for the Republican right in that he is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights. But when it comes to foreign policy, Rudolph W. and George W. are very much alike with Giuliani perhaps more hawkish on what he calls in his article in Foreign Affairs “the Terrorists’ War on Us” and the fight against “radical Islamic fascism.” By embracing the neo-conservative trigger-happy “global war on terrorism” doctrine Rudy W. has become the neo-conservatives’ dream candidate for 2008. Both George W. and Rudy W. derive what they seem to take as their special authority and legitimacy from the positions they held on September 11, 2001. As they cleverly invoke and exploit 9/11 for their political and policy goals, they get away with being righteous and stubborn—as the president once again shows by staying the course in Iraq as the Washington Post reports today.

Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars earlier this week, George W. said,
“I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization [emphasis added].”

In Foreign Affairs, Rudy W. makes the same point,
”Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001…Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack [emphases added] by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy.”

Al-Qaeda is Not the New Superpower: Terrorists Win When We Allow Them to Win

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Judging from the news (especially on the all news cable networks) of the failed attempt to drive a burning jeep into the terminal building of Glasgow airport and what was reported as foiled plots to explode two cars in the midst of London, al-Qaeda is the world’s new superpower. Public officials in the United Kingdom contributed to this perception. As Mary Jordan and Craig Whitlock report in the Washington Post, Britain’s new Prime Minister Gordon Brown told his nation that it is “clear that we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaeda." He warned furthermore, "It's obvious that we have a group of people -- not just in this country, but around the world -- who're prepared at any time to inflict what they want to be maximum damage on civilians, irrespective of the religion of these people who are killed or maimed.” According to an Associated Press report, Brown’s terrorism advisor, Lord Stevens, added that “Al-Qaida has imported the tactics of Baghdad and Bali to the streets of the UK.” On his No Quarter blog, terrorism expert Larry Johnson writes, “As events unfold I'm simply asking that folks take a big deep breath and try to keep things in perspective. Are there jihadist extremists in the world who are willing to kill innocents?  Absolutely. Are they amenable to negotiation? No.  I am not in the, ‘have you hugged a terrorist today’ camp. However, we need to stop equating their hatred with actual capability.”  Instead, public officials and the media hype the terrorist threat. And presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was the first of the contenders trying to score political points off the events in the U.K, when he said in New Orleans, “The car bomb scare in London and the attack Saturday at the Glasgow airport underscore the need for a strong immigration policy in the United States.”
    Public officials and the news media have an obligation to inform and educate the public about the calculus of terrorism so that citizens understand the scheme of political violence in which the psychological impact on target societies surpasses the number of people killed and injured. Every person that is killed in a terrorist event means a tragic, utterly unnecessary loss. But we must also keep in mind that many more people die each year because of traffic accidents, crimes, cancer, heart attacks, and AIDS rather than in terrorist incidents. About 40,000 Americans are killed year in, year out in traffic accidents alone compared to about 3,000 persons who perished on 9/11 in the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Yet, the victims of diseases and accidents do not cause the widespread fear and depression that are common in the wake of major acts of terrorism. Target societies must become aware of these facts and realize that the psychological impact of terrorism is disproportionate to the likelihood that an individual will become a victim of terror strikes.

John McCain and the “Most Experience” Claim

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Before officially declaring his candidacy for the presidential nomination of the Republican Party this Wednesday, Arizona Senator John McCain made another guest appearance on the Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart’s show was hardly the venue to win points as the reactions of the studio audience attested to. The most hawkish competitor for the Republican nomination continues to put his chips on the claim that he is the most experienced of all candidates. “I know what war is like,” McCain told Jon Stewart and the audience. This was an implicit reminder of his time as POW in North Vietnam. Dan Balz reports in the Washington Post that McCain’s chief campaign strategist John Weaver, too, emphasizes his candidates experience, saying, “"I think that without a doubt the American people, beginning [Wednesday], are going to see the most experienced candidate in either party and the only one who's willing to put principle above politics to get this country moving forward," Weaver said. I do not know what Weaver means with moving this country forward. But given McCain’s unwavering hawkish stance on Iraq—and obviously on Iran as well, moving forward seems to mean most of all winning in Iraq. Aside from the question what victory means after the military battle against Saddam Hussein’s army was won years ago, Jon Stewart put it well, when he asked McCain with respect to the failed Iraq strategy, “If the architects that built a house without doors or windows don't admit that that's the house they built and continue to say it's your fault for not being able to see into it, I don't see how we can move forward?"

But McCain does not ask or answer such questions. Instead, he repeats the White House line: Unless we defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, terrorists will follow us into our homeland. Of course, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded the country nor is there any reason to believe that the organization’s terrorists wouldn’t strike us as long as we fight in Iraq, if they saw an opportunity to do so. Most of all, however, the most credible reports from Iraq reveal that the horrific violence there is committed by Iraqis some of whom embrace Osama bin Laden’s hateful ideology and others who do not. It is far from clear that they have more than domestic goals.

9/11 Superstar Giuliani on his way to the White House?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If you are interested in gauging presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, his rise to become the Republican Party’s current frontrunner, and the contradictory traits recognizable in his public and private life, read today’s op-ed article by Andrew Kirtzman in the Washington Post. Kirtzman, a correspondent for WCBS-TV in New York and the author of a book about Giuliani (Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City), provides an interesting portrait of the former mayor of New York City before, during, and after the horrific 9/11 attacks. At the end, Kirtzman leaves readers with several questions: “Would his instinct for dividing politicians into friends and enemies plunge the White House into a Nixon-era bunker mentality? Or would his confrontational style usher in a refreshing era of Truman-style bluntness? Finally, has Giuliani's penchant for drama diminished, or would he careen in the White House from one tabloid-style controversy to the next?” Advising voters to consider such question, Kirtzman provides his own answer: “If the past is any guide, a Giuliani White House would be dominated by his outsize personality. The public had better figure out now whether that would be a good thing.”

Fighting the Propaganda War Against Democrats Rather Than the “War Against Terrorism”

By Brigitte L. Nacos 

Obviously shocked into action by the media hype surrounding predictions of a Democratic victory in the midterm elections, members of the cabinet have joined President Bush and Vice-President Cheney in mounting an all out end run against a possible but far from certain Democratic take-over of congress. According to the Washington Post’s Peter Baker, at a tent festival on the North Lawn of the White House, administration biggies were interviewed by dozens of radio hosts. Besides Carl Rove, others “on hand included, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, and budget director Rob Portman. With all the big guns fighting the campaign war against Democrats, one wonders who is minding the store and who is directing the war against terrorism--not only during the interview blitz on the North Lawn and the wave of presidential news conferences in the pre-election months with the latest of these events earlier today.

“The Stakes” Ad: RNC Pushes the Fear Button Again

By Brigitte L. Nacos 

Republicans' mood may be grim as the Washington Post reports this morning but they obviously hope that the fear tactic might still work in their favor on Election Day. Exploiting Americans’ fear of terrorism helped Republicans winning the elections of 2002 and 2004. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Republicans once again push the fear button in the last phase of this campaign hyping up an existential terrorist threat against America in an ugly campaign ads reminiscent of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s infamous “Daisy” ad of 1964. So far only placed on the Republican National Committee’s web site but already shown this morning in a CNN newscast, the ad shows bin Laden and some of his lieutenants threatening the U.S.and the devastating results of terror attacks. The spot ends the words “These are the stakes. Vote November 7” (In the "Daisy" ad, Lyndon Johnson spoke the same words, "These are the stakes").The implicit message is what the President, Vice-President and other Republicans say explicitly in their stump speeches, namely that Democrats are not tough on terrorism and defense. Only Republicans are. With the ad reportedly on its way to be shown on cable-networks and -stations, the question is: Will the fear tactic work again this time around?

The Patriotism Police Regains Strength

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In a disgraceful display of election year politics, members of both Houses of Congress used the Iraq war and the very real terrorist threat to position themselves for their respective campaign battles. While members' focus on their constituents in red and blue states assured that neither the Republican majority nor the Democrats' minority was united on a future course of action in Iraq, Republicans used their majority status to push resolutions that allowed them to attack Democrats as cut-and-run defeatists and as siding with Al Qaeda and thus with terrorists. In a revival of the Swift-Boat tactics during the 2004 presidential campaign that maligned the decorated Vietnam veteran Senator John Kerry as traitor, this time around one of the targets was John  Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), another decorated Vietnam veteran and strong supporter of the U.S. military who, according to Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia) is said to be against America and for Al Qaeda--because of his opposition to the administration's post-invasion Iraq management."Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win, he said. "The American people need to know precisely who they are. It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda or America?"