reflectivepundit

Press Freedom or Selling Out to Authoritarian Bullies

By Brigitte L. Nacos

I just finished reading the historical novel “The Director” based on the actual life of film director G. W. Pabst and his family, in which the German author Daniel Kehlmann explores how a seemingly decent person makes a pact with the devil—in this case with Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. When given a choice between persecution and concentration camp or unlimited resources for making motion pictures for the glory of the Third Reich, he answers with the “Heil Hitler” salute and full compliance.

While I read the gripping narrative, I could not help thinking of our predicament today here in the United States of America. To be sure, we are not living close to what happened in Hitler Germany. But unless we completely ignore the news, we see and hear day-in and day-out the ever more brazen attacks on democratic law, political convention, and empathy for the suffering of people here and abroad.

The democratic fabric weakens and the authoritarian markers strengthen.

Attacks and threats against institutions and individuals in the media, education, court, and corporate systems become more frequent and more harmful.

Taking the example of the news media, it seems that the owners are bending their knees when facing the wrath of a vengeful president, who has attacked the non-Fox-like media frequently as “the enemy of the people.”

Last Sunday, ABC News which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, suspended correspondent Terry Moran after he posted on social media that White House chief of staff Stephen Miller was “a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred” and called him “a world-class hater.” Moran also described Trump as “a world-class hater.” ABC News declared in a statement that it “stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others.”

It was not prudent in terms of securing his journalistic position for Moran to characterize Miller and Trump the way he did . But what he wrote is true. After all, these two powerful men were instrumental in the dismantling of America’s global USAID network and thus prevented the distributing of available food in storage houses in the Third World to starving children and adults. We all know whom and what they hate.  And when it comes to name calling, Miller and Trump have a long history of the most extreme kind of insulting rhetoric.  

But ABC News and the Walt Disney Company bent their knees quickly to prevent another defamation suit after they settled another one by Trump last year by paying $16 million. In that case, Trump resorted to legal action because TV-anchor George Stephanopoulos reported that Donald Trump had been "found liable for rape" in the E. Jean Carroll trial. The actual guilty verdict was for “sexual assault” but as the trial judge Lewis Kaplan said, the verdict did not mean that Carroll "failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.' Indeed ... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

There is also a pending lawsuit by Donald Trump against CBS News claiming that the network's "deceitful" editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris during last years’ campaign misled the public and unfairly disadvantaged him.

Most legal experts agree that Trump has little chance winning this law suit.

Yet, Paramount and its controlling owner, Shari Redstone, do not want to stand up for press freedom but seek a law suit settlement with Trump at a time, when they seek approval by the FCC to sell the company.

Protesting the corporate bosses’ “heavy-handed” interference with “60 Minutes,” the long-time executive producer of the popular show, Bill Owens, resigned a few weeks ago.  

These cases (along with Amazon's Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, who exercises censorship of the newspaper)  demonstrate how the chilling effects of presidential hostility against the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression/press and corporate self-interests can and do short-circuit press freedom.  

That brings me back to the historical novel “The Director” and the price of selling out to authoritarian bullies.  

What are the alternatives? Collective dissent? Courageous opposition leaders?

Those are the questions to ponder…

Flimsy Charges against Congresswoman (D); $5 Mill. Award for Family of Violent Jan. 6 Attacker

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Democratic Congresswoman LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was charged with assaulting ICE and police officers outside an immigration detention facility in Newark on May 9^th. She and other members of congress had tried to make an oversight visit in the detention center.

I remember watching the news footage of scuffles outside the facility between protesters, Democratic lawmakers, and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, when a bunch of ICE agents and police tried to arrest the mayor and eventually managed handcuffing him. Congresswoman McIver was in the crowd that pulled and pushed in efforts to defend Baraka against the large number of ICE and police officers who did their share of pushing and pulling.

The Department of Homeland Security claimed that Democratic politicians “stormed the gate and broke into the detention center." The videotaped scenes did not show any of this.

Today, President Trump supported the arrest of Ms. McIver claiming that she was “out of control.” He also warned,  “The days of crab are over.”

Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats and Ms. McIver called this case “purely political.”

This first legal action against an opposition politicians surely looks that way.

Ironically, the drastic move came within hours of news reports that the U.S. government will pay close to $5 Mill. to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot to death by a Secret Service agent as she used violence in her effort to entering the House of Representatives on January 6, 2021.  

Babbitt has been glorified by President Trump and his MAGA followers as an American patriot and hero.

Her family sued the U.S. government for Babbitt’s wrongful death seeking $30 Mill. A trial was set for July 2026. But now both sides agreed on a $5 Mill. settlement that will be paid by us--American taxpayers.

Here you have the assault charge against a Democratic lawmaker trying to exercise her oversight rights in an overcrowded immigration detention facility; there you get a rich award for a family member's participation in the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Just another crazy day in Donald Trump’s America.

Mr. President, Your Shortened Political Honeymoon Is Over

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Typically, following their inauguration, U.S. presidents enjoy political honeymoons of about three months or 100 days. During that time, the enthusiasm of their supporters tends to be sky-high and the opposition lays low. Public opinion polls show sustained high approvals.

Donald Trump’s political honeymoon, however, was over before he reached today’s 100 Days Marker. While the president and his MAGA supporters celebrate what they consider huge presidential accomplishments, polls reveal weakening public support for Trump’s policies and governing style.

When Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2021, he had the approval of 52 percent of poll respondents. Soon thereafter, he lost that majority approval and then some. Last Sunday, a Washington Post/ABC News poll reported that merely 39 percent of Americans approved of Trump; other major polls reported 42 percent and 43 percent approval ratings.

A few days early, FOX News was the first news entity to publicize a significant drop in Trump’s approval to 44 percent. An angry president attacked FOX News and Rupert Murdoch for not removing their team of pollsters. It was another case of a powerful man trying to punish the messenger of bad news. Once other surveys confirmed the downturn in presidential approval ratings in general approvals and more significant declines for certain policies (economy, immigration, etc.), Trump called pollsters “negative criminals,” who should be investigated.

“Negative criminals” is a strange term to describe professional pollsters and by extension those news organizations that publish the results. Although White House aides continue to downplay poll numbers, Trump’s extreme rhetoric in reaction to his polling slump indicates how upset he is about the numbers.

There is reason for his concern. A case in point is the Canadian populace’s response to President Trump’s repeated threats to turn the neighboring country into the 51^st U.S. state. A huge public opinion lead of the Conservative Party’s electoral prospects vanished as the temporary Liberal Party’s Prime Minister Mark Carney became the most forceful anti-Trump voice. Yesterday, the Conservative Party’s Pierre Poilievre, who mimicked Trump's extremism, did not merely lose the P.M. race but also his legislative seat in a rural district which he had represented for 21 years.

One wonders how Mr. Trump might respond to potential further decline of public support and similar developments in the Congress. Thomas Edsall addresses this question in an op-ed article of today’s New York Times titled “How Does a Stymied Autocrat Deal With Defeat?” The political scientists he consulted voiced different views, especially, on possible violent reactions of an autocratic president blocked by dissent.

I ponder whether the violent January 6 invaders of the U.S. Capitol that President Trump pardoned might be the type of “positive criminals” ready to giving an encore performance sometime in the future.

When Fear and Courage Matter

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In the spring of 2016, when Donald Trump led the field of Republican presidential contenders, he told the journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, “Real Power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear.

Lately, I have thought of that quote a lot.

When I saw the horrific images of masked and hooded guys grabbing a Tuft University foreign student, handcuffing and forcing her into an unmarked car. Or when the news reports that the Department of Justice and the President of the United States ignore District Court and Supreme Court rulings to bring back to the U.S. a Latino man who was deported by the Department of Homeland Security to a high security prison in El Salvador because of an “administrative mistake.”  In both cases and a rapidly increasing number of other instances, the constitutional due process rights of people were violated. Their “crime” in the eyes of Trump’s MAGA regime are protests in the form of written or spoken words—both guaranteed rights in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Stoking fear is the point. What else could we make of the Secretary of Homeland Security standing in front of the El Salvador prison warning undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. voluntarily or otherwise end up in a hell hole like this.

Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk also use the fear factor to decimate the federal civil service, disable literally all departments of the executive branch, and threaten members of the GOP majority in both congressional chambers with primary challenges to kill even the slightest opposition to presidential directions.  

So, Trump uses power ruthlessly to cause fear and then exploits fear to gain what he calls “real power.” One could also call it dictatorial power.

Within the first 100 days of Trump’s second presidency, there have been many strongman orders and many who accepted them. In certain cases, such as in Germany under Hitler, police and paramilitary squads used deadly violence to silence any dissent. But that is not the case here. Not now. Thus, there are still choices to be made.

I think of the big law firms that represented prominent Democrats as clients and therefore were threatened by an executive order issued by Trump which would have banned attorneys of these legal giants from entering federal buildings, including court houses—a certain road to bankruptcy. Several settled with Trump promising each $100 Mill. in pro bono work for uncontroversial causes both sides agreed on. Columbia University, threatened with losing some $400 million in federal research grants, agreed to several administration demands that curtailed academic freedom at the private university. But there was no final settlement.

However, when Harvard University was threatened by the Trump administration with far more draconian oversight of all important aspects of academic life, the oldest American university refused to accept and thereby risked $2 billion in federal grants and contracts. As Harvard President Alan Garber wrote, “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. Doing otherwise would threaten the values of any private university “devoted to the pursuit, production and dissemination of knowledge.”

Harvard’s example and that of several law firms who went to court challenging Trump’s executive order and winning their first legal rounds are profiles in courage compared to the otherwise widely complicit behavior of all kinds of influential leaders in the corporate world and elsewhere.  

But Harvard’s resistance might encourage others. Columbia University’s acting President Claire Shipman, wrote in a campus email that she “read with great interest the message from Harvard refusing the federal government’s demands.” And she promised, “We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialog with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

For strong and influential institutions and leaders outside of government there are two very different ways to deal with strongmen dictates: one driven by fear and self-interest; the other by courage and risk-taking.   

The Last, Best Hope Against Tyranny? A United—not Divided—Democratic Party

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the 2024 presidential campaign and Kamala Harris’s thin defeat by Donald Trump continue to fuel a never-ending stream of critical analyses inside the Democratic Party and, even more so, among mainstream media commentators and reporters. I am not writing here about the right-extreme on- and off-line news and social media outlets that spent years to convinced King Donald’s subjects that Democrats and Liberals are evil-doers. Rather, my focus is on the mainstream liberal and moderate media and the Democratic Party.

While the party that loses an election deserves autopsies of its long- and short-term failures, the commentariat’s obsession with magnifying real and imagined tactical, strategic, ideological, institutional, and generational divisions inside the Democratic Party has gone over the top. And it has taken attention away from the scary words and deeds of the Musk-Trump regime.

Needed now are cool and courageous heads inside the Democratic Party who recognize that the only opposition party is the last, best hope to organize strong, peaceful, and potent protests against the clear and present danger we are facing today.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) showed the way last weekend, when they drew huge crowds in Colorado and Arizona. Instead of theorizing about the threat of losing democracy, they talked about the butter-and-bread issues that regular, working people are worried about. Health care, social security, the basic standards of living.

But Bernie’s most important words were his appeals to the utility of unity in times of crises.

Forget about dwelling on whether Chuck Schumer should be replaced as minority leader in the U.S. Senate or whether Nancy Pelosi should refrain from running once again in 2026. Such issues are not the most pressing ones now; they can be addressed inside the party and without public spectacle.

If hundreds-of-thousands of people can come together on the streets of Istanbul to protest their autocratic president’s unjustified arrest of a political opponent, the leadership of the Democratic Party can and should be organizing far greater protests on a regular basis along the lines of Bernie’s and AOC’s mass demonstrations last weekend.

Is Today’s America Still a Democracy?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In his latest column in the New York Times titled “Democracy Is on the Line in Israel and America,” Thomas Friedman wrote, “Are we seeing the slow-motion collapse of the rule of law in the United States and Israel at the same time?”  It is too early to answer that question, but it is no longer too early to ask it.”

I am sure that James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers and the fourth U.S. President, would not merely ask but also answer the two questions Friedman raised in the headline and first paragraph of his commentary—certainly with respect to the United States.

As Madison wrote in Federalist #47,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

He added that “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”

Today, President Trump is firmly in charge of the legislative branch while threatening judges who are ruling against the daily abuse of power by the White House and other administration officials.

The Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate are not “separate and distinct” but obedient pawns of the president. By willingly and enthusiastically handing over their constitutional powers to the executive, they are abandoning their role as the “first branch of government.”

Unlike the congressional GOP, some members of the judicial branch—judges and prosecutors-- have resisted interference by the president’s eager servants. More recently, the ruling clique has not merely threatened to fight non-compliant judges but disregarded and acted contrary to their rulings. Last weekend, the Homeland Security Department deported alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, although a U.S. judge had blocked the removal. Similarly, a Lebanese professor at Brown University was deported in defiance of a court order to halt her deportation.

The so-called Border Czar Tom Homan, said on FOX News, “I don’t care what judges think…I’m proud to be a part of this administration. We’re not stopping.”

Since the courageous judges do not have the means to enforce their rulings without the assistance of executive departments, the president and his administration are now paralyzing independent judges and rely on loyalists in the judiciary to support their cause.

The triple separation of power designed by the Framers of the Constitution to safeguard liberty and justice--and thus democracy—is crumbling within the first 100 days of Trump’s second term.

 

King Don’s Court Prefers Complicit Reporters

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In the new White House order, the best and brightest political reporters representing the legacy press have lost their advantage to asking questions as part of the so-called press pool which has a limited and rotating number of wire, print, and television reporters. Traditionally, the pool members are selected by the White House Correspondents’ Association and share their first-hand observations with other White House reporters with both sides trusting each other.

All this changed eight days ago, when the White House announced that it would take control of the selection of pool members. Just as far-right online and television channels were regularly called on by Trump’s press secretary in the early weeks of his second term, they now are part and parcel of the press pool during events that allow only a limited number of reporters. This now prominent clique of MAGA courtiers mimics and promotes the narcissistic traits of their idol who strives to be king.

Take last Friday’s “made for television” assault on Ukraine’s president Zelensky by President Trump and his sidekick Vice-President JD Vance. After Trump himself had greeted Zelensky earlier with the loud remark directed towards the press, “He’s all dressed up today…,” a reference to Zelensky’s usual field uniform in support of his forces fighting Russia’s invading army, a pool “journalist,” asked the Ukrainian president, “Why don’t you wear a suit? You’re at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit. Just want to see if…do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the office.”

As it happened, this White House selected pool member represented a far-right cable channel with a history of conspiracy theories. He played his role to the full satisfaction of those who selected him over reporters who understand the crucial role of the press in a democracy—among them the Associate Press wire service. Note, that no far-right or any other White House reporter has asked Elon Musk during his repeated performances in the Oval Office why he did not wear a suit. Presumably, they all know that President Trump would not like such a question.

Even more shocking was the presence of a man working for the Russian government wire service TASS among pool reporters during the pro-Russian rhetorical assault on Zelensky. The White House claimed later that the guy was not approved for the pool and removed once his presence became known.

That is not credible. Whoever has been in the White House as member of a foreign press outlet knows that nobody without secret service clearance and security checks all along gets near or into the Oval Office. In this case, another pool reporter observed that White House officials, who reviewed reporters’ credential before allowing them to enter the Oval Office, waived the TASS reporter in. Thus, a journalist representing and paid by the Russian government attended the event that a Kremlin spokesperson characterized later as demonstrating that both governments have “coinciding visions.”

Similarities and Differences between Car Pioneers Henry Ford and Elon Musk

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, had the foresight to produce the first automobile that was affordable for the middle class. But the successful industrialist, who became one of the wealthiest persons of his time, was also a staunch antisemite. To spread anti-Jewish biases, he purchased in The Dearborn Independent, for which he wrote a series of conspiratorial articles about the so-called global Jewish threat. After some of those racist articles were published in book-form and translated into several foreign languages, Germany’s Adolf Hitler made no secret of his admiration for Ford’s anti-Jewish tracts. Indeed, in 1938 Hitler awarded Ford with the “Grand Cross of the German Eagle,” Germany’s highest award for foreigners.

A century later, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla Motors, had the foresight to build electric vehicles that were applauded for their environmental benefits. Once he became the richest man in the world, Musk bought the social media platform Twitter and altered it into a far-right online media named X that did not fact-check certain hate speech. The day Trump was inaugurated, Musk used the “Heil Hitler” salute in his appearance before a celebrating MAGA crowd. Six days later, he gave his explicit support to the neo-Nazi Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) Party in Germany declaring in his virtual speech that it was time for Germany to “move on” from “past guilt.” His listeners understood what he meant, namely, that the German people should simply forget about the holocaust and the death of six million Jews during Hitler’s Third Reich.  

Henry Ford was a politically influential player in the first decades of the 20^th century. But neither Ford nor any other unelected person was ever given so much direct decision-making power as Musk got within the first two weeks of the Trump regime. That was his award for donating $277 million to the Trump campaign 2024.

The other day, it was reported that Musk and his minions gained unprecedented access to the Treasury Department’s records of the recipients of government payments. One can only assume that this is a key to the work of his imaginary Department of Government Efficiency and/or the new rule of revenge in the administration. The abrupt closing of the USAID agency’s headquarters and its work around the world is also part of the executive power grabs at the expense of the legislative branch.

The Republican majorities in both houses of the Congress are on their knees and not willing to defend their constitutional roles. Many are happy sycophants; others know better but are afraid of MAGA’s revenge against anyone not 100 percent behind the authoritarian rule of the oligarchs.

Those, who criticize congressional Democrats for not fighting what is unfolding, forget the restrictive role of the minority. It is only, when the negative consequences of the just started tariff war and other ill-advised policies of the current administration hit home in the electorate, that Democrats can and must blame those who caused the dilemmas to come…

Musk’s “Heil Hitler” Salute and Trump’s Pardoning of January 6th Terrorists

By Brigitte L. Nacos

I am old enough to remember Germans greeting each other saying ‘Heil Hitler” while raising their arms in the Roman or fascist salute. Not doing so, could and in fact did result in somebody reporting them as possible dissidents to the Nazi leader and his regime.

Today, “Heil Hitler is chanted and the raised arm salute displayed by neo-Nazis and White Supremacist here and abroad in their on- and offline gatherings.

Yesterday, as I watched Donald J. Trump’s coronation on television, nothing shocked me more than the behavior of richest man in the world, Elon Musk: While he addressed a jubilant MAGA crowd in Washington DC’s Capitol One Arena, he pounded his chest and then raised his arm in the fascist way screaming “Yes” and then turned around so that the people behind him could see his fascist salute as well.

This public spectacle by Trump’s most generous campaign benefactor and primary advisor came a few hours before the once-again president signed the executive order granting pardons to his supporters who attacked the US Capitol and police officers on January 6, 2021 to keep Trump in power.

Among the 1,200 or so men and women are the leaders of paramilitary groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, whose members acted during and after Trump’s first presidency as “body guards” at MAGA events. They will soon be free to carry weapons and carry out political violence without fearing law enforcement interference.

This presidential decision did not come as a surprise. Trump promised all through his campaign that he would free all what he called “political prisoners” or “hostages.” Many of these people may never attack police officers again or commit other violent acts.

 But the hardcore members of the para-military groups will be soon available to move in their violent ways against former and present critics of Trump and his regime.

Autocratic leaders having paramilitaries at their disposal like Hitler had his vicious SS stormtroopers, is a sure sign that such strongmen can and probably will circumvent the normal law enforcement and judicial processes to move against their perceived enemies.

If the first hours of the second Trump presidency are guideposts for what will follow in the days, months, and years ahead, I pray for our democracy.

The Digital Robber Barons Have Staring Roles America’s New Oligarchy

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Joe Biden was right, when he borrowed the 19^th century “Robber Barons” metaphor to warn contemporary Americans of the present threat presented by money- and power-hungry digital oligarchs. Once the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Fists, Rockefellers, and others exploited public lands, oil, minerals to assemble their private wealth at the expense of the public good and their own workers; today the new American oligarchs use publicly financed high tech innovations, starting with the internet, to build global communication spaces of unprecedented economic, political, and cultural influence.

Yes, the old industrial oligarchs along with their high finance moguls could count on the nationwide newspaper chains owned by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. But the reach and influence of the old press-lords paled in comparison to the on- and offline communication platforms controlled by Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, and a few others.  

The Robber Barons of old became highly successful because they had significant influence on the governmental leadership of their time. Today’s Robber Barons are not satisfied that their generous donations to Donald Trump’s campaign and inauguration assure them political influence, where it counts. They want a piece of the incoming president’s power. The ideal vehicle is the non-existing “Department of Efficiency” that Elon Musk created for cutting billions of dollars in “wasteful” government spending that will free up resources for lowering the taxes for the largest corporations and the wealthiest individuals.

Among the many targets of the digital Robber Barons’ axes are regulatory agencies that watch out for the public interest. The National Highway Traffic Administration, for example, keeps track of car accidents’ causes. No wonder that Musk wants to abolish the agency that documents how many deadly accidents are caused by his self-driving Tesla automobiles. But that particular interest of Mister X is tiny in comparison to the several $billion worth of U.S. government contracts that Musk’s SpaceX and other companies receive each year. As the constant companion and inside advisor of soon-again President Trump, Elon Musk will have a direct voice in cutting government benefits at the expense of millions of regular Americans on the one hand and boosting increased benefits for a small group of rich individuals and large corporations on the other hand.

According to press reports, Trump has nominated an unprecedented number of thirteen billionaires for cabinet posts. They and the digital “Robber Barons” add up to an astonishing core of America’s new oligarchy that has fully embraced an authoritarian president as leader or vessel to bring about a new “gilded age” of political selfishness and corruption.

How does all this fit into Donald Trump’s populist campaign that attacked the elites of the “deep state” and valorized workers and farmer promising immediate pocketbook uplifting upon returning to the White House?

A friend asked the other day, why so many Americans are uninformed about politics and policies. I answered that most people are informed but they receive contradictory information from different sources. Thus, Americans do no longer agree on what qualifies as fact and what as fiction, what is the truth and what is a lie. I just read Timothy Snyder’s excellent book “On Freedom.” He considers the over-consumers of the leading online sources—social media-- as the targets of “brain hacks” and “surveillance capitalism.” If anything, this ill-influence of online sources will become more extreme given Zuckerberg’s decision against further fact checking which will result in unfettered access of hate speech and Big Lie extremism of the far-right variety.

Green light for America’s new oligarchy.