RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Protest Trump, Not Your Fellow Protestors Print
Sunday, 04 June 2017 12:44

Bovy writes: "Since the election, however, a new intra-left meme has emerged, taking what seems to be the opposite tack: If you're panicking now, but weren't before, then you must be privileged. Life has always been terrible for some, but evidently not the likes of you."

'It's become chic for those protesting against Trump for the last five minutes to sneer at those who've only been protesting for four minutes.' (image: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast)
'It's become chic for those protesting against Trump for the last five minutes to sneer at those who've only been protesting for four minutes.' (image: Elizabeth Brockway/Daily Beast)


Protest Trump, Not Your Fellow Protestors

By Phoebe Maltz Bovy, The Daily Beast

04 June 17


It’s become chic for those protesting against Trump for the last five minutes to sneer at those who’ve only been protesting for four minutes. This helps no one.

hether you’re glued to Twitter on your phone or only occasionally check Facebook mid-commute, you’ve likely encountered the hyper-political acquaintance who can’t fathom how anyone else is not as continuously outraged as they are. These criticisms are often phrased in terms of privilege: If you had anything at stake, you’d be on high alert every moment of the day, and not have time for cat videos or pedicures. Kristen Tea put it as follows, in a massively viral (public) Facebook post, directed at the amorphous privileged: “Your privilege allows you to live a non-political existence.”

Since the election, however, a new intra-left meme has emerged, taking what seems to be the opposite tack: If you’re panicking now, but weren’t before, then you must be privileged. Life has always been terrible for some, but evidently not the likes of you. Your shock at the things Trump is capable of reveals your indifference thus far, an indifference that could only possibly stem from privilege. Which… may be true, or may not, on a case-by-case basis. It’s at any rate not the best place to focus.

This approach is, or can be, born of legitimate frustration: If everyone had been on board all along, we wouldn’t have the problems (or president) we do. I think of the man quoted in The New Yorker as saying, of the Women’s March protesters, “Where were you all when we needed canvassers?” (Quite possibly, they were canvassing.)

Often, though, these remarks are not really about the past at all, but merely a lament that newly arrived activists (or white men specifically) may not stick around in solidarity with groups they don’t belong to. Worse: The new arrivals may just think protesting is trendy and fun, and may give up the moment a protest doesn’t have a signature (pink, knitted) accessory.

If you’ve been facing oppression for years, it can be exhausting, and even insulting, to hear from those who only just now learned that America isn’t utopia. It can also feel like a denial of the bigotry many Americans, African-Americans especially, have faced in this country since well before Donald was even born.

Teen Vogue ran a poem about the Women’s March by activist Johnetta Elzie, making a similar point: “We’ve been marching for years—where the hell have all of you been?” Elzie’s poem isn’t (just) asking literally where new protestors were during recent civil rights marches. As the opener suggests, it’s about America’s history of injustice: “Where were you when your ancestors set out to steal my ancestors from our homes?”

For a more spelled-out version of this argument, consider the “top highlight” from Courtney Parker West’s Nov. 9 Medium post:

“Dear liberal white people whom I often love: advertising your shock and surprise that racism, sexism, xenophobia, and bigotry are pervasive enough to hand that man the Presidency is a microaggression. Please stop.”

Activists from marginalized groups can be put off, understandably, by the presence of newcomers who appear to take a touristic approach to the endeavor. Also understandably, if a notch less so, some self-identified allies seek to guide newcomers in proper activist etiquette, including not assuming the struggle against bigotry began when you, personally, woke up to its existence. At the end of the spectrum is full-on virtue signaling, where someone super privileged, who totally started caring five minutes ago himself, announces that anyone who showed up only four minutes ago is too privileged to protest, and should probably just retreat to the cat pedicure salon from whence she came.

Point being, some shaming of new arrivals is reasonable, some just posturing. But Trump presents unique dangers, and has the potential to make life significantly worse, especially for those who baseline didn’t have it great. A balance needs to be struck between not tone-policing venting that expresses itself as annoyance at new arrivals, but at the same time keeping overall activist emphasis on what lies ahead. Prerequisites to activism should be kept to a minimum.

There has, thankfully, been pushback against the “where have you been” approach, and it’s come from activists ranging from Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza, who warns that asking the newly engaged why they hadn’t shown up earlier may effectively turn them away, to Bill Dores, whose activism began in the ’60s, who objects to an approach that prioritizes “moral purity.” Garza and Dores both convey the essential, which is that to get involved, you have to start sometime.

Energy is better-spent addressing injustice going forward than wondering why any individual’s political engagement wasn’t sparked at some other moment.

I can only add that it’s risky to assume privilege was the reason someone wasn’t already politically involved. Protesting can show your privilege. Also: Not protesting can be evidence that you don’t have anything to complain about. We’re left with a tremendous case-by-case It Depends. There’s a certain type of political caring that’s simply more accessible to 19-year-old college students than to anyone else, and “anyone else” is a big category, filled primarily with people who are not particularly privileged. And that friend whose constant Facebook posts about not normalizing Trump make your other friends seem indifferent in comparison? It could well be that this friend has a not-so-demanding office job, and simply has more time than the rest of you to share every last article. Inaction stemming from indifference and from resignation can look identical.

The takeaway here ought to be that activism should be assessed for its capacity to dismantle privilege, not by measuring the exact privilege level of each activist.

Along the same lines, it’s also foolish to dismiss broader involvement sparked by the realization that one’s own rights are at risk, or that’s otherwise inspired by a privileged person’s sense that maybe they’re not as safe as they’d thought. Nothing is gained by telling someone with a “grandchild of refugees” sign at a pro-immigrant rally that they need to stop centering their own experiences. Now is not the moment to dismiss empathy, however acquired.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Trump's Rollback of Civil Rights Print
Sunday, 04 June 2017 11:34

Reich writes: "Trump's budget isn't just about massive tax cuts for rich and major cuts in assistance for the poor. He also wants to roll back civil rights."

Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)
Robert Reich. (photo: unknown)


Trump's Rollback of Civil Rights

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

04 June 17

 

rump’s budget isn’t just about massive tax cuts for rich and major cuts in assistance for the poor. He also wants to roll back civil rights. Under his proposed budget:

  1. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice – which has long investigated hate crimes, voter suppression, and other forms of discrimination – would lose at least 121 positions.

  2. The Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program – in charge of policing against discrimination by companies with federal contracts – would be eliminated altogether. That’s 600 positions. (Just last September, the office reached a $1.7 million settlement with tech giant Palantir for discriminatory hiring practices.)

  3. The Environmental Protection Agency’s environmental justice program – which combats higher-rates of pollution in communities of color – would be eliminated.

  4. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights – charged with investigating discrimination in America’s schools – would be drastically cut. The Trump administration itself has admitted these cuts will hamper its ability to conduct investigations.

Trump has made clear his priorities: Benefit the most comfortable Americans and stick it to the most vulnerable.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: America, Get Ready for the Comey Show Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 04 June 2017 11:10

Rich writes: "Whatever Comey says or does not say next week, this show, with its buried trove of mysterious evidence (Trump's tax returns) and interludes of farcical relief (the repeated leaks from the Mike Pence camp trying to portray him as completely out of the Russian loop), is only just getting started."

James Comey. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
James Comey. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


America, Get Ready for the Comey Show

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

04 June 17


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today: Comey gets ready to testify before the Senate, Trump pulls out of Paris, and Sean Hannity finds a substitute host.

ormer FBI director James Comey is scheduled to testify before a public Senate hearing next week, where he will reportedly speak about President Trump’s attempts to end the Russia investigation. How damning do you expect his testimony to be?

Donald Trump may be ignorant about virtually every topic that reaches the desk of an American president, but there is one area of expertise where even his foes concede his mastery: show business. It’s a measure of how fast even that skill set is eroding under pressure that he doesn’t recognize he’s now starring in a gripping espionage thriller he cannot control. Comey’s testimony, besides being quite damning, will step up the narrative pace. He is a seasoned, unflappable performer before Congressional panels. He has a story to tell featuring Russian spymasters and moles, not to mention possible obstruction of justice in the Oval Office. Americans love the Bourne movies. They love House of Cards. They love 007. Should the White House try to thwart Comey’s appearance with bogus claims of Executive Privilege, that will only add to the intrigue and suspense.

As I wrote at the time, Comey’s firing may possibly have marked the beginning of the end of the Trump administration. That prospect has only increased since. Trump’s dwindling and bickering White House coterie hoped his trip abroad would change the subject from Russian collusion — a false high that was sustained for nine days by the president’s ostensible new “discipline” in reading from TelePrompters and abstaining from Twitter. Once he was back home, that bubble burst faster than you can say “covfefe.”

For the large part of the public that is just beginning to tune into this drama, Kushner will also be a riveting player. Everyone resents a young, entitled multimillionaire power broker who has achieved his status and wealth entirely because of nepotism. But most Americans know little more about him — they’ve never even heard his speaking voice. The character of Jared Kushner will be filled in by the media soon enough, and not in a good way.

Whatever Comey says or does not say next week, this show, with its buried trove of mysterious evidence (Trump’s tax returns) and interludes of farcical relief (the repeated leaks from the Mike Pence camp trying to portray him as completely out of the Russian loop), is only just getting started. The star of Celebrity Apprentice is about to learn what it means to appear in a prime-time hit when the writers and producers are out to sabotage the star.

After Trump announced his plans to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, President Obama released a statement saying that the jobs and innovation needed for a low-carbon future will now largely grow elsewhere. Will this decision come back to get in Trump’s way?

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump declared when he marked his reckless decision with a bizarre Rose Garden celebration (complete with a military band playing jazz). It’s not certain that he even understood that the pact was no more a Parisian invention than Freedom Fries. But facts were always beside the point in making this move: his only goal was to pander to a political base that buys Steve Bannon’s brand of America First populism. In the process Trump alienated virtually the entire world, all of America’s key allies included; the majority of Americans who (polls show) support the Paris accord; corporate leaders from nearly every sector of American business (from Google to Goldman Sachs to GE); and the governmental and civic leaders of every state and municipality eager to protect the citizenry from climate change and/or to cash in on the expanding green economy. What could possibly go wrong?

Not to minimize Trump’s threat to the planet but leadership outside of Washington is now finally energized to fill the vacuum he’s left behind, and the elections of 2018 and 2020 are likely to further hinder this administration’s assault on environmental regulation. Meanwhile, the Trump base is once again being played for the patsies they are. As Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, tweeted last night: “This White House is creating more jobs for criminal defense lawyers in Washington than it will ever create for steelworkers in Pittsburgh.”

Sean Hannity has offered a spot guest-hosting his radio show to Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, who is considering it. What do you make of the weird bond developing between these two?

It’s a happy development. Hannity is the last on-air personality propping up Fox News’s cratering prime-time ratings, and he now appears well on his way to following O’Reilly and Roger Ailes on the path to career self-immolation.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Terrorism and Authoritarianism Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 04 June 2017 08:38

Ash writes: "If aspiring right-wing authoritarians have nothing else to offer citizens of the countries they hope to lead, they always have fear of terror."

The scene near London Bridge after the attacks. (photo: Reuters/Neil Hall)
The scene near London Bridge after the attacks. (photo: Reuters/Neil Hall)


Terrorism and Authoritarianism

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

04 June 17

 

f aspiring right-wing authoritarians have nothing else to offer citizens of the countries they hope to lead, they always have fear of terror.

“Terrorism,” as it is conveniently defined by today’s Western governments, is actually a phenomenon that dates back to at least ancient Rome.

Interestingly, many historians cite an act of terrorism and subsequent embrace of military rule by the Roman Republic as the event that put the Roman Republic on the path to becoming the Roman Empire.

The current plague of attacks on civilians in Western countries is a bit more complicated, but may well presage the decline of the American Republic and the rise of our own empire. Or not. The matter is unsettled.

In any case, nothing makes free citizens hurl their rights at the feet of authoritarians faster than an act of terrorism – real, imagined, or made inevitable through colonialist aggression.

One significant complicating factor is the ideology of the Islamists. Al-Qaeda and ISIS do agree on one strategic point: they see a US drawn into a broader Middle Eastern conflict as desirable. In much the same way as the Soviet Union was drawn into Afghanistan, the Islamists see the US defeated as well. An epic oversimplification to be sure.

With Donald Trump at the American helm, obviously anything is possible. However Trump’s newfound solidarity with the UK in the wake of recent bloodletting there, while reeking of rank political opportunism, also illustrates his and America’s own dependence on the Western democratic order. The pond grows ever smaller regardless, it seems.

Trump’s departure from the Paris Accord evoked the image of a child threatening to run away from home, only to realize that he has nowhere to go. But of course that wasn’t the point – rallying his base on the advice of Steve Bannon and by proxy Bannon’s stakehorse Rebekah Mercer was the motivating factor in that decision. A recurring phenomenon at the Trump White House.

It will be more difficult for the US Republic to reinvent itself as an empire with post-World War Europe positioned in the middle of the equation. However, in the end, all that democracy guarantees its citizens are the tools to preserve it. The tools must be used. How badly do you want a republic?


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Art of the Trump-Putin Deal Print
Saturday, 03 June 2017 13:41

Reich writes: "Say you're Vladimir Putin, and you did a deal with Trump last year. I'm not suggesting there was any such deal, mind you. But if you are Putin and you did do a deal, what did Trump agree to do?"

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


The Art of the Trump-Putin Deal

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 June 17

 

ay you’re Vladimir Putin, and you did a deal with Trump last year. I’m not suggesting there was any such deal, mind you. But if you are Putin and you did do a deal, what did Trump agree to do?

1. Repudiate NATO. NATO is the biggest thorn in your side – the alliance that both humiliates you and stymies your ambitions in the Baltics and elsewhere. Trump almost delivered on this last week by pointedly not reaffirming Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all.

2. Antagonize Europe, especially Angela Merkel. She’s the strongest leader in the West other than Trump, and you’d love to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Germany. Your larger goal is for Europe to no longer depend on the United States, so you can increase Russia’s influence in Europe. Trump has almost delivered one on this, too. Merkel is even saying Europe can no longer depend on America.

3. Take the U.S. out of the Paris accord on the environment. This will anger America’s other allies around the world and produce a wave of anti-Americanism – all to your advantage. Nothing would satisfy you more than isolating the United States. Trump has already delivered.

4. Then unravel the accord. Russia is the world’s second-largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia, and biggest exporter of natural gas. And the oil and gas industry contributes about half the revenues to your domestic budget. The last thing you want is for the world to shift to wind and solar, so you’d love for the whole Paris accord to unravel. Trump has promised to help.

5. Embark on a new era of protectionism. Or at least anti-trade rhetoric. This will threaten the West’s economic interdependence and loosen America’s economic grip on the rest of the world. Trump is on the way to delivering on this one.

6. End the economic sanctions on Russia imposed after the annexation of Crimea and Russian backing of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Oil production on land is falling, so you want to tap the vast petroleum and gas reserves offshore in the Arctic. In 2011, you and ExxonMobil’s Rex Tillerson, signed a $500 billion deal to do this. But sanctions imposed in 2014 by that damned Obama administration stopped the project. Tillerson, now secretary of state, and Exxon lobbied against the sanctions. Trump has promised to lift the sanctions, so you can get on with oil and gas extraction in the Russian Arctic.

No delivery on this as yet, but you understand why. Trump has got to cope with all the suspicions in America about his deal with you. (Why can’t he stop all those leaks?) Once that business dies down, he’ll end the sanctions. In the meantime – as a symbolic down payment – he’ll hand back to you two diplomatic compounds in America that were taken by the U.S. government in late December as punishment for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

And what did you agree to do in return, Vladimir? What was your side of the deal? Two things: You’d help him win the presidency. You’d also shut up about your help so Trump wouldn’t be impeached and convicted of treason.

In other words – if you did do a deal (and I’m not suggesting you did, Vlad) – Trump has delivered part of it but is still in the process of delivering the rest. And you’ve delivered part but are also still delivering the rest. That way, each of you can maintain pressure on the other. It’s what’s so beautiful about the art of the deal.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 Next > End >>

Page 1622 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN