Trump and What Army?
by Peter Dorman (originally published at Econospeak)
Trump and What Army?
Donald Trump is no stranger to outrageous public poses and statements, but his refusal to condemn white supremacists post-Charlottesville has apparently struck a nerve. Has he crossed some sort of new line? Here are some dark, speculative thoughts about the events of the past few days.
I believe Trump’s impeachment is an option that political and financial elites are holding in reserve. They appreciate the vehicle that has brought the hard right to power, but they are ready to remove it if it no longer serves their purposes. It’s not clear whether there is evidence sufficient to impeach him today, but there almost certainly will be in the coming months, especially as his finances are exposed. I am not claiming that impeachment is a certainty, only that less hormonally imbalanced elites want it to be available should they need it.
The problem is that something like a third of the country supports Trump, most of them passionately. His base will regard an impeachment as a final, decisive battle for American freedom, the fulfillment of all their most paranoid suspicions about the evil forces arrayed against them. And quite a few of them are armed.
The nightmare scenario is an impeachment process setting off mass violence in the streets—a civil war. Trump can be forgiven climate denialism, nuclear sabre-rattling and various other sins, but he can’t be allowed to encourage the formation of loyal paramilitary band of supporters, a praetorian guard of street thugs. Hence the uproar over Charlottesville by plutocrats and Republicans who have swallowed equally contemptible posturings in the past.
It is axiomatic that if you say things with which other people disagree, there will be repercussions.
In the past the government of the United States has insisted that those repercussions be limited to speech.
But now I hear liberals saying things that imply that some stronger medicine is needed. (ANTIFA) What has happened to critical thinking in this country?
History is not going to be kind to law enforcement authorities in Charlottesville Virginia.
They required that some small number of white protesters get a permit to hold a protest.
Then they allowed a very large number of counter protesters to descend without any permit at all.
As if that was not inflammatory enough. Law enforcement authorities allowed these two groups of people who detested each other, to come together with shields and sticks.
Exactly what were law enforcement officials thinking?
“Riot police cleared the park after almost an hour of clashes. The far-right groups were largely compliant, but had to run the gauntlet of counter-protesters as they walked west along Market Street.”
See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/virginia-unite-the-right-rally-protest-violence
And the tragedy is that a young woman lost her life. Perhaps this young woman would be alive if law enforcement had done a better job of crowd control.
Do you think that it might be possible that President Trump knew this?
Throughout history, governments have allowed some favored group to descend on protesters. We have been no different. Favored whites descended on black protesters in the south, as white law enforcement stood by.
Which side was the favored group in Charlottesville?
And what are liberals thinking now? That the first amendment to the US Constitution went too far? That only popular speech should be protected? The current President of Venezuela would certainly agree!
Perhaps Charlottesville is not a good example of anything.
“his refusal to condemn white supremacists post-Charlottesville”
He didn’t refuse to condemn white supremacists, he condemned violence on “all sides.” In other words he condemned all violence whatever side you are protesting on.
In Portland OR, there have been several outbreaks of violence during protests. 100% were caused by the “anarchists” who have renamed themselves “Antifa” So apparently there is the capacityl for violence on both sides.
There were not multiple morally equivalent sides in Charlottesville, VA as Trump attempted to create with his statement. There was only the white supremacist side of Trump and others who have oppressed the rights of others over the years.
1. The deaths from racial violence in the US have not been on many sides. Separation of parents from children have not been on many sides.
2. The forced sterilization has not been on many sides. The government-enforced segregation has not been on many sides.
3. The forced relocation has not been on many sides. The stolen labor has not been on many sides. Media erasure has not been on many sides.
4. Police-sanctioned lynchings have not been on many sides. Broken treaties and stolen land have not been on many sides.
5. Immigration enforcement has not been equally applied to many sides. Beauty standards have not represented many sides.
6. Segregated schools do not advantage many sides. Rape culture does not create vulnerable people from many sides.
7. Music traditions were not coopted and sold for profit from many sides. The constitution didn’t count 3/5ths of a person from many sides.
8. Justice frequently does not have many sides. When powerful groups harm less powerful groups, there is not a need for mutual apology.
9. False equivalency is a lie that renders the powerful as victims. And it is a violence to those who are not equal save for that lie.
10. Poverty and exploitation do not have many sides. People did not die in #Charlottesville on many sides. And justice cannot say otherwise.
Dr. Phil. Goff https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/12/16138982/trump-charlottesville-false-equivalency
Dan,
“Fellas, give me a splay burn around the perimeter with holes…
at 20 and 40 meters from right here.
Thank you.’
“The nightmare scenario is an impeachment process setting off mass violence in the streets—a civil war.”
Illuminated by Tiki torches, I guess.
” 100% were caused by the “anarchists” who have renamed themselves “Antifa” ”
Looks like somebody got the bedwetter memo. For the pro-fascists and proto-fascists, here’s where that meme comes from:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/antifa-and-the-alt-left-everything-you-need-to-know-w498420
The elites just got what they wanted–more opened ended war in Afghanistan. As long as Trump keeps playing ball on what’s important to them, there will be no impeachment.
Perhaps, just perhaps if instead of starting, and now after 15-17 losing two wars, cratering the economy and denigrating, when not just ignoring most of the country we would not have President Trump. The cultural, political and financial elites have made their bed of tinder and now want to stop the mob from torching it.
What matters is not what political party you’re in, but whether you’re a 1% or 20% who can be the courtiers and servants if you make the right noises.
One more thing. Both ends of the political spectrum is full of people who had, want, or will use violence to get everyone else to do what they think is best. This comparing of how many millions each side has killed, or hurt, in what century for what reason is rather bizarre.
Sammy,
Your statement:
“He didn’t refuse to condemn white supremacists, he condemned violence on “all sides.” In other words he condemned all violence whatever side you are protesting on.”
If I get your drift the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto come to mind…they shouldn’t have resorted to violence I guess.
It seems to me that when confronted by groups and people who would oppress you if you had the “wrong” color skin or wardrobe or political preferences or cultural heritage, or religion, then if you don’t resist those groups you are one of them or you don’t care whether those groups are freely able to oppress others because they think / believe they have the right and righteousness to do so.
There is at some point a moral obligation to resist those who would use unrestricted oppression of others.
But it then depends on which side of the moral equation you sit. I’m sure the skin-head neo-Nazi’s, white supremacists, racist, xenophobes also believe their being oppressed from being able to freely oppress.. Pretty much the same as the southern slave holding class and their supporters thought the liberal northerners were oppressing them from their enslavement of other people whom they had bought from slavers who captured and transported them for sale as sub-humans.
I’m equally sure the native Americans who occupied and utilized the continent for their livelihood also felt they were being oppressed by the new white man from beyond the sea’s who were taking their land and eventually rounded them up to place in “reservations”… aka concentration camps, or killed them (women and children included) because the new white men were intent on suppressing them. At least they confronted the oppression boldly.
It’s a foregone conclusion, that opposing groups confronting one another will resort to physical violence given enough reason (emotions). The only way to prevent the physical acts is to keep them physically separated. That is what the police and government in Charlottesville actively failed to do. Could the police and law enforcement have taken greater effort to keep the groups separated?
“Then they allowed a very large number of counter protesters to descend without any permit at all.”
Not true.