reflectivepundit

To Unmask the Trump-Vance Threat, Harris and Walz Must Call a Spade a Spade

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After he learned that Kamala Harris had chosen Tim Walz as running mate, Donald Trump claimed in a post on his social media platform Truth Social (what an ironic name!), “This is the most Radical Left duo in American history…” This was a mild version of his usual accusations that characterize his domestic political “enemies” as existential threat to America. On Veterans Day last November, for example, Trump said,

“The real threat is from the radical left. And it’s growing every day, every single day… They lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible…They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream…We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

He and his acolytes have revealed what they mean with rooting out the enemy within, namely, to destroy the “deep state” and the “administrative state” and replace them with MAGA loyalist who are being trained for their “patriotic” duty in the next Trump administration. Oh, yes, after the mainstream media finally covered the scary content of “Project 2025” at some length, Trump distanced himself from the far-right blue print. But the same Trump supporters who worked on that project are involved in a more detailed plan for the transition from the Biden to another Trump presidency.

And nobody should forget that the former president has threatened retribution against non-loyalists, that he has talked about prosecuting and executing high level members in his administration and in the congress who stood up to his illegal schemes.

Trump’s illegal and immoral actions and plans are so numerous that they seem normal and not worth mentioning.

The normalization of Trump’s extremism and its blessing by his running mate are great, perhaps the greatest problems for his opponents in this campaign. In their efforts to counter the dark picture of contemporary America that Trump and his side-kick JD Vance are painting, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are embracing hope and joy and laughter. That is a wonderful antidote to the script of the MAGA leaders that speaks to the fear and resentment that they stoke in their supporters.    

But the lion’s share of the Harris/Walz campaign energy must be reserved to unmask the existential threat that Trump and Vance post for America. That is not a laughing matter. Satire, jokes, and hints will not do.

Harris and Walz must call a spade a spade and bare the undemocratic views and plans of former president Trump and U.S. Senator Vance as un-American. They must explain the devastating consequences of the MAGA agenda and its implementation for the mass of Americans. And they must deny the far-right’s birthright to patriotism and the American flag.

When Vice President Harris spoke in Philadelphia about the “promise of America” coming true for her and her team-mate Walz and used the refrain “Only in America,” the crowd screamed repeatedly, U.S.A!

That was a good beginning for their 90-day campaign.

Columbia University Must Not Hand the GOP Woke Police President Shafik’s Scalp

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After teaching for more than three decades at Columbia University, I have followed the protests on and around the campus from afar. To say that I am troubled by the deep divisions among students, faculty, and administration is an understatement. Lately, I have been asked by several people about my take on the Morningside Heights situation. I do not have a quick and simple answer. In confrontations like those at Columbia and many universities today, the conclusion what side or sides are right or wrong cannot easily be made. Especially not, when media reality does not fully reflect factual reality on the ground.

On one point, however, I do have a categorical position: Columbia’s faculty, students, and ultimately the board must ignore all calls for the university’s president, Minouche Shafik, to resign. If she is forced out, it will be a total victory for Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who first trapped the presidents of Harvard University, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania during a congressional hearing with hostile questions, none of the witnesses seemed prepared for. It cost two of them their jobs.

After Liz Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, was forced to resign, Stefanik posted on social media, “One down. Two to go.” That was her goal from the outset. Behead the leader of ivy league universities, the long-time targets of the far-right. Shortly thereafter, Harvard’s Claudine Gay resigned. MIT president Sally Kornbluth has so far survived the Stefanik-led far-right attack.

Recently, Dr. Shafik and two members of Columbia University’s board appeared before the same committee and seemingly tried to appease Stefanik and other woke hunters. That did not please part of the Columbia faculty and student body. And it certainly did not appease Stefanik. The onetime moderate Republican from up-state New York, who became a MAGA militant on a fast track to power in Washington, wants to add Dr. Shafik’s scalp to her trophy collection.

On Monday, Elise Stefanik, and the other members of New York’s GOP delegation in the House, sent Dr. Shafik a letter urging her “to step down immediately so that someone who will take action against this mob can step up...”

Today, House Speaker Mike Johnson, perhaps fearful to be outflanked by Stefanik, called for Dr. Shafik’s ouster as well before he visited the Columbia campus to speak with Jewish students.

So far, the Columbia senate, in which faculty, students, and board members are represented, consideres censoring president Shafik, especially, for calling in the police to arrest protesters who refused to leave their camp site amidst the Morningside campus. There seem no calls, up to now, for her resignation from within the Columbia community.

A major point of those who oppose the forceful removal of protesters is that these students were not violent. What they and most people mean, when they think of or say violence, is causing physical harm. But just as serious, or even greater mental and even physical harm can be caused by hate speech, vocal attacks, and visuals (such as burning crosses, displaying swastikas, or waving Hamas flags).

I will write more about my thoughts on the current campus protests in future posts.

Trump Accomplice is Now a Political Analyst for NBC/MSNBC: A New Low for Legacy Press

By Brigitte L. Nacos

A free press is supposed to be a check on the institutions and officials of government by scrutinizing everyone involved in the political power play and informing citizens and voters fully. That’s why the press in democracies is understood as extra check on government in case the institutional system of checks-and-balances does not work. Moreover, a free press should reflect the whole range of political views among governing elites and governed constituents.

To discharge these responsibilities, political opinions voiced in the responsible press should not be one-sided but rather an amalgam of different viewpoints. In the American setting, this should mean that news consumers are presented with the ideological and policy positions of the two major parties and relevant additional views. When the views of political leaders and their followers threaten the democratic fabric of body politic, the press’s commentators must warn and alarm.  

Like in the past, mainstream news organizations, such as TV and radio networks and the large print/online presses, have today political commentators across the partisan spectrum.

Why, then, is the hiring of Ronna McDaniel as a paid political analyst for NBC/MSNBC News disconcerting and an insult to journalistic ethics?

McDaniel served from 2017 to recently as chair of the Republican National Committee. During Trump’s presidency and thereafter, she was a loyal supporter of the Trump. She became his accomplice, when he tried to overturn the 2020 election results by convincing fake state electors to nullify Biden’s victory. She backed Trumps and the MAGA/GOPs Big Lie, claimed consistently that the 2020 election was rigged, and refused to criticize the storming of the US Capitol that her boss incited.

In other words, as influential chair of the RNC McDaniel was for six years a pathological liar in support of the whims of one illiberal leader—not of the conservative roots of the Republican Party. She seconded her boss’s relentless attacks on journalists and thereby contributed to the hostility of MAGA crowds toward reporters at mass rallies.

In her appearance on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” McDaniel tried to distance herself from her past lies in the service of Trump. She seemed to accept that Biden won the 2020 election and claimed to oppose Trump’s plan to pardon the January 6 insurrectionists if he returns to the White House. But even as she reversed former statements during her NBC appearance, she claimed that she had not changed her positions.

She tried hard to protect her contract with NBC.

In doing so, she had the gall to tell other members of the “Meet the Press” panel, “I think you should trust me!” But many NBC journalists, along with colleagues across the media landscape, remained critical of her hiring. Thankfully, so.

A chronic liar cannot be trusted. Not by serious journalists and not by serious news consumers.

Trump warns of “a bloodbath” in case he does not win this year’s election. And the news media yawns

By Brigitte L. Nacos

On Saturday (3/16), Donald Trump warned during a campaign stop in Ohio that there will be “a bloodbath” if he is not elected later this year. When I checked the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a bunch of well-regarded regional newspapers this morning, none of them carried the shocking warning on page one. The websites of Times and News, too, did not treat the former and perhaps next president’s outrageous threat as number one breaking news.

Instead, they paid more attention to the presidential candidates’ campaign donations, Trump supporters’ successful spread of disinformation, the election in Russia, arms smuggling to Yemen, and the Schumer-Netanyahu feud.

The Times headline “Trump Says Some Migrants are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He loses,” rated Trump’s old insult of “illegals”—he called them repeatedly “animals,” “rapist,” “criminals” and the likes—higher than his unprecedented “bloodbath” threat. And the story itself cited Trump’s new rhetorical low only in the third paragraph. Note, that the story was updated on Sunday morning.

Everybody should read and remember this explicit Trump warning issued this weekend: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”

The Washington Post headlined its report, "Trump says some undocumented immigrants are 'not people' and relegated the bloodbath warning to the subtitle. It is only in the sixth paragraph that the reporters get to Trump's most outrageous remark and cited it: "Later in the rally, Trump warned it will be a bloodbath for the country, if he is not elected. The comment came as he was promising to hike tariffs on foreign-made cars, and it was not clear exactly what Trump was referring to with his admonition." 

What could not be clear, when a presidential candidate predicts a bloodbath for the country, if he is not elected? And why would the news report call Trump’s warning of something horrific to happen to America an admonition? It sounded more like a threat of civil war or a terrorism threat that goes and in hand with his frequent warning that this election year will be “the last battle.”

When I grew up in Germany and was an aspiring young journalist, I looked at American journalists and the high standards in their professional ethics rules with tremendous admiration. And I was not an exception. Many of my colleagues felt the same at the time, when German journalism found a new beginning after the dark years of the Nazi regime and looked to the Anglo-American press model.

Yes, technology has changed the whole media industry. But if the news organizations that are perceived to be the best in the country and the world cannot or do not want to recognize and priorities truly extraordinary news, the old press model that I once admired greatly is on its way out.

Trump Spoke of “Cutting” Entitlements, the News Media Paid Little or No Attention

By Brigitte L. Nacos

This morning, shortly after 7:30 a.m., I was watching CNBC, when the co-host of “Squawk Box” Joe Kernen began his interview with Donald Trump. Before long, Kernen asked the former president and presumptive GOP nominee for this year’s presidential race,

“Have you changed your, your outlook on how to handle entitlements Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Mr. President? Seems like something has to be done, or else we’re going to be stuck at 120% of debt to GDP forever.”

Trump answered according to the transcript,

“So first of all, there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements, tremendous bad management of entitlements. There’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do. So I don’t necessarily agree with the statement…”

Trump was crystal clear as he touched the third rail of politics and spoke of “cutting” entitlements. While he did not go into any details of what, how deep and whom he would cut, the mere fact that he mentioned the “c” word for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid was a complete reversal of his previous campaign assurances that he would protect those programs.

A few news organizations mentioned Trump’s statement. But there were no “breaking news” highlights.

Around 3:00 p.m., some seven hours after the live interview, I wondered how the New York Times and Washington Post covered what I thought to be a news blockbuster. Instead, I found that the Times posted a lengthy story about the interview but it was solely devoted to Trump’s backtracking of his former demand to ban TikTok. I found no headline about Trump’s remarks on potential Social Security cuts. I looked carefully through the headlines on the Post’s website and found none on Trump’s words on entitlements in the morning.

Given that many millions of Americans depend on the so-called entitlements, I have no idea, why those two influential media entities failed to report on this promptly and prominently.

To be sure, Trump makes lots of controversial and shocking statements so that editors have to make choices on what to report. But for two of the most influential media to ignore for hours (and perhaps for good?) the very newsworthy statement of one of the two leading presidential candidates that will likely become a major issue in the presidential campaign is more shocking than Trump’s turn-around words on entitlements.

Democrats Must Magnify the Unholy Agenda of Trump’s Congressional Proxies

By Brigitte L. Nacos

President Biden, the White House, and the Democratic Party have received ample criticism for their lack of effective and around-the-clock public communication promoting their considerable policy achievements and countering the hell-bent Trumpian propaganda of lies, most of all, that he and his coterie are the protectors of the American people against their evil enemies within the country.

I have been asked frequently, how Biden and Democrats could counter their opposition's positions and promote their own. Here I provide a very small but, I believe, workable example.

Below you see the closing lines of a New York Times article by Catie Edmondson about current efforts in the House of Representatives to prevent the shut-down of the government later this week:  

"Among the measures that Republicans have sought are one that would restrict access to abortion medication and another to restrict the Department of Veterans Affairs from flagging veterans deemed mentally incompetent in a federal background check needed to buy a gun. They also have tried to block an effort by Democrats to increase funding for nutrition programs for low-income women and children."

There are no better facts than those described above for Biden and his communication experts to highlight as three of many outlandish measures which are typical for the Republican Party’s extreme, inhumane, and violent agenda.

First, Republican House leaders are not content with the conservative U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now they try to further limit American women’s decision-making right over their reproductive health by adopting federal restrictions to access abortion medication.

Second, Republicans in the House want to give mentally challenged veterans the right to buy guns by removing their health information from background checks. If they succeed, they will make another dangerous gift to the gun industry in return for generous campaign donations. And that at a time, when mass shootings and the number of innocent victims are on the rise.

Third, in another scandalous move, Republicans in the House want to withhold food from children who live in low-income households by blocking efforts by House Democrats to increase funding for this basic nutrition program. Another heartless move by House Speaker Mike Johnson who claims to be a Christian but does not act like a real Christian.

I, like others, have long been disappointed by the Biden White House’s and more recently by the Biden campaign’s lack of old-fashioned spoken and written public relation tactics that use the opposition’s own measures and demands to explain and amplify the threat that the MAGA/GOP and its Dear Leader pose for all Americans and the democratic fabric of the 250-year old American governmental system.  

Donald Trump is a Clear and Present Danger at Home and Abroad

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Just like other dictators before him (think of Germany’s Adolf Hitler or, more recently, the Philippine’s Rodrigo Duterte), Donald Trump, too, has spelled out his strong preference for authoritarian rule, even if it violates the U.S. Constitution and longstanding pacts with European and other allies. According to his own words, he is not only eager to end America’s two-and-a-half century old model of democracy but also the post-WWII transatlantic bulwark against military aggression, originally by the Soviet Union and more recently by Putin’s Russia.

At home, Trump claims in his social media posts and during his campaign appearances that he and his MAGA movement are fighting “our final battle” to “demolish the Deep State…expel warmongers from our government…cast out Communists, Marxists, and Fascists [ he must not know the meaning of that word] …rout the Fake News Media…and liberate our country from these tyrants and villains once and for all.”

Last weekend, he promised that as president he will immediately order a “door-to-door hunt” for migrants and put them into huge camps.

Trump’s admirers abroad embrace his inhumane plans. In Germany, for example, the far-right party AfD (Alternative for Germany) wants to deport all non-Germanic persons residing in the country, even those who are naturalized citizens.      

During Trump’s first presidency he left no doubt about his disregard for NATO and its European members and leaders. In large part, because his NATO peers treated him as an equal and not superior colleague, the narcissistic Trump threatened them with the American withdrawal unless they paid their “fair” dues to the military alliance.

Although European leaders were shocked by President Trump’s repeated threats and appalling behavior during meetings, the U.S. did not leave NATO. Thankfully, during those years, there were serious defense and national security experts in the White House and the Department of Defense who knew the value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Last weekend, Trump gave his idol Vladimir Putin another gift, when he said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country that does not follow the financial guidelines of the organization. He also made clear that he would not abide by NATO’s provision that a military attack on one member must be countered by all members.

The guardrails that existed in the first Trump administration in form of responsible officials will not be in place if he wins a second term. In a second Trump administration, he and his equally power-hungry advisers would not select the most knowledgeable and experienced men and women to serve their country—instead, the litmus test would be absolute loyalty to Mr. Trump and his fascist agenda. There would not be a single official in the administration trying to stop the president from undemocratic and illegal measures.

When Trump claims that he and his supporters are fighting their final battle, he surely does not do so for the benefit of the country but solely to install himself as a lawless leader.

Despite the unthinkable threat of a fascist regime coming to power in the foreseeable future, there is no pro-democracy movement here to counter Trump and prevent him from implementing what sounds and looks like an Orwellian blueprint.  

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Risk of Returning Trump to the White House

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Last week, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris team should not run again in 2024 listing his age and her inability to gain traction in the American public, not even among fellow Democrats. If Biden and Harris “campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.” Ignatius warned.

As I read the thoughtful column, I agreed with the notion that the Democrats need a changing of the guards on the very top. President Biden’s approval ratings are low, Vice President Harris’s are lower. A series of recent campaign polls had Biden and Trump in dead heats with some showing Trump a few points ahead.

Not surprisingly, voters express their concerns about the presumed top contenders’ age in next year’s election, when asked by pollsters. Joe Biden will be short of 82 years old on Election Day 2024 and Donald Trump 78. The sitting president appears more aged as we see him walking and talking on the screen than his predecessor.

And in today’s world, whether true or false, appearances become reality.

That reality overshadows, in the mind of too many people, President Biden’s good qualities—his commitment to uphold democracy, his sound judgement on policies designed to help the American people, his accomplishment in foreign policy, and his never-ending efforts to reach out for bipartisanship.

For whatever reason, during the Biden presidency Kamala Harris did not get the same opportunities to show leadership qualities as Joe Biden did during the Obama presidency. Also, she has not gotten a fraction of the news coverage that Congresswomen Majorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and similar lightweights receive regularly.

Contrary to many pundits who claim that there are no strong alternatives to the Biden/Harris team among Democrats, I believe there are good choice. On top of my list are Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as presidential candidate and Maryland Governor Wes Moore as second on the ticket—a woman and a Black man both exceptional leaders.

However, as of now, the Biden/Harris team will run for reelection. With Trump on top of the GOP ticket (or someone like Ron DeSantis), perhaps enough Americans will again vote in favor of democracy and Joe Biden.

I will.  

Does the Constitution Prohibit Trump from Being President Again?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Two renown experts on the U.S. Constitution, liberal Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe and conservative former judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit J. Michael Luttig, wrote earlier this month in The Atlantic that the Constitution disqualifies former president Donald J. Trump from becoming U.S. president again. Similarly, two conservative law professors, both members of the Federalist Society, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of St. Thomas University, concluded in their not yet published law review article according to the New York Times, “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.”

While this should be a good reason to rejoice for everyone who opposes Trump’s reelection to the highest office in the land next year, the four experts’ views have not exactly dominated the news. Obviously, most of the leading media organizations do not take the argument serious enough to give it “breaking news” prominence.

All four constitutional scholars point to the 14^th Amendment’s Section 3 that deserves to be fully cited here:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.

Clearly, as an officer of the United States Trump took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. And clearly, the indictments filed by special council Jack Smith in the District of Columbia and by District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia charge in detail Trump’s involvement in efforts to violate the constitutional change of power process after Biden won the 2020 election.

But the former president has not had his days in either of the two courts. He has not been convicted. The clause in the 14^th Amendment does not spell out, whether charges or convictions trigger the exclusion from holding the mentioned public offices.

Luttig and Tribe have no doubt that the charges are sufficient to ban Trump from returning to the White House. They write, “The disqualification clause operates independently of any such criminal proceedings and, indeed, also independently of impeachment proceedings and of congressional legislation. The clause was designed to operate directly and immediately upon those who betray their oaths to the Constitution, whether by taking up arms to overturn our government or by waging war on our government by attempting to overturn a presidential election through a bloodless coup.”

The Jan. 6 Indictment of Donald J. Trump: Less Shock Value Than New Normalcy—and What Now?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After eight years of Donald Trump’s reality show performances on the political stage, his demagogic hate speech, lies, authoritarian tendencies, corruption, and a violent coup attempt to overturn the 2020 election results--nothing can shock the American public and political class with respect to the former president and current presidential candidate.

Thus, Tuesday’s four count conspiracy and obstruction Jan. 6 indictment did not result in a public shock wave but rather in a business-as-usual perception. It was simply the same as the reaction to Trump’s earlier indictments in the classified documents, hush money illegalities, and sexual assault cases.

To be sure, there was a burst of breaking news coverage in the hours following the release of the Jan. 6 indictment the other day. Talking heads spoke about the first time a former U.S. president was charged with unlawful conspiracies and obstruction to falsify election results to stay in office. What the 45-page indictment describes eloquently were not the actions of a president who respects the Constitution and the traditional democratic rules and values but of a rogue leader and long-time admirer of past and present authoritarian strongmen.

Worse yet, although Trump faces prison, if found guilty, he is the dominant candidate for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination. His best bet for beating one or more criminal convictions is a victory in next year’s election and his return to the White House.

The most recent opinion polls show that Trump and President Joe Biden are in a tied race. Of course, these numbers can change in the 15 months to next year’s election day.

But in the first hours after the latest indictment a multitude of Republicans in Washington and around the country attacked the “Biden DOJ” for charging their “innocent” leader. While Mike Pence, Chris Christie, and Asa Hutchinson spoke of the serious charges against Trump, the more Far-Right candidates Ron DeSantis blamed the “weaponized [Biden] government and Vivec Ramaswamy called the indictment “un-American.”  Nothing changed.

In the past, political observers wondered why a man like Donald Trump was able to win the 2016 election. I do not want to rehash in detail that Hillary Clinton won the total number of national vote but fell short in the electoral college that is a vestige of the undemocratic features of the US Constitution. One way or the other, some 70 million Americans voted Trump into the White House seven years ago.

Yes, Trump lost in 2020 both in the electoral college and in the nationwide total of votes. But it was not a landslide for Biden but a slim victory.

Today, the support for Trump in his MAGA movement and the Republican Party seems solid and goes up with every new set of criminal charges against him. As the campaign and the various trials approach and begin, Trump will certainly go the mass rally route again and stir his followers hate of “the other side.” Last month, Trump told his supporters already, “I’m being indicted for you!” And he promises that only he can save the country from the evil liberals, socialists, globalists, and the likes.

I think that in today’s America we should no longer focus solely on Trumpism and its threat to democracy but rather on the many Americans who believe in the values of liberal democracy, the mutual agreement on the legitimacy of majority and minority parties, the peaceful transition of power from one party and one leader to the others, and so forth…

Why is it that we do not see a potent pro-democracy movement here? This question occurs to me every time I look at the images of protesting Israelis who try to prevent their state’s fall into illiberal democracy or theocracy. There are a multitude of former Republicans, anti-Trumpers, and PACs that support them; there are the usual groups supporting the campaigns of Democrats. 

We have not seen any efforts to mobilize Americans by organizing pro-democracy rallies and perhaps even a from-below movement.  

Typically, it takes politically skilled leaders to organize grass roots political actions over longer time periods or even social movements. But the story of an Israeli woman, a particle physicist, mother of five daughters, with no political past or ambitions, who became one of the several  organizers for the pro-democracy protests in her country, is inspiring.

Why not similar initiatives in defense of democracy right here and now—before it is too late?