|
What Happens If Trump Supporters Believe His 'Rigged Election' Hype? |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37309"><span class="small">Chas Danner, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 17 October 2016 08:27 |
|
Danner writes: "Hillary Clinton has already acknowledged that defeating Trump is unlikely to counteract the influence his candidacy has had on the country."
Seeing red. (photo: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
ALSO SEE: Milwaukee Sheriff Says It's 'Pitchforks and Torches Time'
What Happens If Trump Supporters Believe His 'Rigged Election' Hype?
By Chas Danner, New York Magazine
17 October 16
 onald Trump’s increasingly nuclear campaign plumbed the depths yet again on Saturday morning when the candidate worked to discredit the country’s democratic process in a series of tweets. Trump thus repeated his accusation that the election is rigged against him and that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is a criminal, while also insisting that the media is complicit in his campaign’s meltdown following numerous new allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him.
Unfortunately, according to a new Boston Globe report, some of Trump’s supporters are taking the candidate’s paranoid and potentially dangerous rhetoric to heart, and that dynamic may lead to an ugly outcome on Election Day and beyond. The Globe spoke with Trump supporters at his rally in Cincinnati on Thursday and found that, unsurprisingly, “anger and hostility were the most overwhelming sentiments” among the crowd, where many had “an us-versus-them mentality, and a belief that they are part of an unstoppable and underestimated movement” that was being deliberately targeted by sinister outside forces. What’s more frightening, however, is what these supporters said they would be willing to do in response to what they now believe will be a “rigged” election, as Trump has repeatedly assured them. Explains the Globe:
His supporters here said they plan to go to their local precincts to look for illegal immigrants who may attempt to vote. They are worried that Democrats will load up buses of minorities and take them to vote several times in different areas of the city. They’ve heard rumors that boxes of Clinton votes are already waiting somewhere.
And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.
“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take … I would do whatever I can for my country.”
Conspiracy theories, which now make up a large percentage of Trump’s remarks at rallies, were rampant among this group of supporters as well, with some insisting that they had seen videos of Clinton allies ripping up voter registrations, or that President Obama has been fast-tracking citizenship for undocumented immigrants in order to gain more Democratic votes, or that some states don’t even require voter registration in the first place. There is no credible evidence for these allegations, of course, but the report indicates that among Trump’s die-hard base desperation and paranoia seem to overwhelm reason — especially at a time when Trump is, in the eyes of most observers, imploding. To these supporters, Trump simply cannot lose unless the election is rigged.
Furthermore, some Trump supporters who spoke with the Globe indicated that they would indeed answer Trump’s repeated calls for them to become amateur poll watchers on Election Day; though, what one supporter described wanting to do was actually voter intimidation, plain and simple:
“Trump said to watch you precincts. I’m going to go, for sure,” said Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter from Fairfield, Ohio.
“I’ll look for … well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” he said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
Some Trump supporters say that if he doesn’t win, they figure the United States government will be no better than dictatorships where elections cannot be trusted.
As Jamelle Bouie argued earlier this month at Slate, comments like these are the direct result of Trump’s often racially charged “rhetorical time bombs” about how the only way he can lose the election is if his opponents cheat — a prediction Trump has resorted to more and more as his campaign loses ground:
[T]he idea that [Trump] would respect the results of the election, full stop, ignores the hatred that’s come to characterize Trump’s campaign, the violence he’s condoned against protesters and other vocal opponents, the virulent prejudice he’s brought to mainstream politics, and the apocalypticism of his message, where he stands as the final hope for an embattled minority of resentful whites. These rhetorical time bombs, in other words, could be the catalyst for actual intimidation and violence, before and after Election Day. And if that violence and intimidation strikes, it will be against the chief targets of Trump’s campaign: people of color.
Bouie goes on to detail how racially motivated voter intimidation, and even Election Day violence, are definitely not without precedent in the U.S., but what is without precedent is for a major-party presidential candidate to lead that charge. As Fergus Cullen, a former chair of the New Hampshire GOP, explained to the Globe:
In this country, we’ve always had recriminations after one side loses. But we haven’t had riots. We haven’t had mobs that act out with violence against supporters of the other side. There’s no telling what his supporters would be willing to do at the slightest encouragement from their candidate.
But the sentiment of pro-Trump voters may also reflect a more widespread historical shift, according to data published in the Washington Post on Friday. Law professor Nathaniel Persily and SurveyMonkey’s Jon Cohen explain that, according to their research, “the values that support American democracy are deteriorating,” and that in a survey of 3,000 registered U.S. voters, some 40 percent said they had lost faith in America’s democratic system, a total which included most Trump supporters:
One of the hallmarks of faith in democracy is a willingness of the defeated to accept the results of elections. Democracy, after all, is not about the selection of particular leaders, but the notion that citizens have the power to select them at all. It relies on the assumption that today’s electoral losers will live to fight another day, so that their faith in the system of democratic selection weathers temporary setbacks. But in this election, we find that a surprising share of the electorate is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of the election of their non-preferred candidate.
When asked in this SurveyMonkey Election Tracking poll if they would accept the result should their candidate lose in November, just 31 percent say they definitely would see the outcome as legitimate. Nearly as many (28 percent) say it is either “unlikely” that they would accept the result or that they definitely would not. Again, Trump’s supporters were more apt to say they would question the legitimacy of a Clinton victory than vice versa, but sizable shares on both sides, representing tens of millions of Americans, indicate they would not accept the legitimacy of the next president of the United States.
Trump will almost certainly continue to escalate his questioning of that legitimacy himself in the coming weeks, particularly if his campaign continues to falter. And if Clinton wins, she has already acknowledged that defeating Trump is unlikely to counteract the influence his candidacy has had on the country. Speaking in Seattle on Friday, Clinton remarked that:
This election is incredibly painful. I take absolutely no satisfaction in what is happening on the other side, with my opponent. I am not at all happy about that because it hurts our country, it hurts our democracy, it sends terrible messages to so many people here at home and around the world. Damage is being done that we’re going to have to repair. Divisions are being deepened that we’re going to have to try and heal.
And no matter what, the ugliness of this election seems unlikely to end on Election Day.
 |
|
How Dictatorships Are Born |
|
|
Sunday, 16 October 2016 13:28 |
|
Cohen writes: "Societies slide into dictatorship more often than they lurch, one barrier falling at a time. 'Just a buffoon,' people say, 'and vulgar.' And then it's too late."
Donald Trump. (photo: Damon Winter/NYT)
How Dictatorships Are Born
By Roger Cohen, The New York Times
16 October 16
  omething is happening here but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mister Jones?”
Of course Bob Dylan deserved the Nobel Prize for Literature. We’re all Mister Jones now. It’s the wildest political season in the history of the United States.
Just to make his pedigree clear, Donald Trump is now suggesting that Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty, in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors.”
READ MORE
|
|
|
Fifty Years Since the Black Panthers Formed, Here's What Black Lives Matter Can Learn |
|
|
Sunday, 16 October 2016 13:19 |
|
Andrews writes: "The Panthers were known for their high-profile trials and confrontations, but that's not where their true revolutionary work was done."
'Fifty years on, the legacy of the Panthers is particularly important.' Black Panther supporters protest in 1970 while two members go on trial for murder, New Haven, Connecticut. (photo: Barton Silverman/Getty Images)
Fifty Years Since the Black Panthers Formed, Here's What Black Lives Matter Can Learn
By Kehinde Andrews, Guardian UK
16 October 16
The Panthers were known for their high-profile trials and confrontations, but that’s not where their true revolutionary work was done
 n 15 October 1966 Huey P Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in Oakland, California. The Panthers quickly became one of the most important and well-known black radical organisations, inspiring chapters across the US and around the world. Fifty years on, the legacy of the Panthers is particularly important given the resurgence of black political action and the rise of Black Lives Matter on both sides of the Atlantic. The Panthers are largely remembered for their gun-toting public displays and revolutionary rhetoric; but the true legacy of the party is the grassroots community activism that defined them.
The image of the Panthers marching into the state capitol building in California armed with shotguns, in 1967, shocked America to the same degree it inspired black communities. The Panthers believed in armed self-defence and “patrolled” the police, observing them during stops in black communities. This, unsurprisingly, led to confrontations, shootouts and arrests, as well as high-profile trials against Panthers including Newton. The campaigns to free the Panthers and raise money for legal defence are the basis of the collective memory of the party. However, the reality of their work was not these direct and sometimes symbolic confrontations.
The main work of the Panthers was in coordinating “survival programmes” that offered support to poor African-Americans that the state would not. The “free breakfast for schools” programme was feeding 20,000 children a day at its peak; the free health clinics treated tens of thousands of people; and they also started their own “liberation schools” to counter racist schooling. It was this community organising that embedded the Panthers in the community, not the guns and shootouts. One of the first successes of the Panthers was campaigning to get a traffic light put up on a busy intersection in Oakland, where children had been knocked down. The main lessons for organisations as they develop in Britain is that activism is not judged by big showpieces that gain media attention; but the mundane organising that organically links movements to the communities they are trying to serve.
In Britain there is a rich historical legacy to draw upon, which has largely been forgotten. The British Black Panthers started in 1968 and included people like Dr Althea Jones-Lecointe, Olive Morris and photographer-in-chief Neil Kenlock. The British Panthers did not condone gun use and focused on community education and anti-racist campaigns. They are part of a lost legacy of black radical activism that has strong roots in Britain. As new movements develop it is important to make connections and draw lessons from what has gone before.
Contrary to popular mythology, the Panthers in America were 60% female and featured prominent roles for women. This was particularly true in the British movement, which had strong female leadership and groups that sprang out of it such as the Black Women’s Group in 1973. Black women have been erased from the narrative of black activism and it is important we rediscover that history.
The Panthers have also helped sustain today’s movements. Their first creative fundraising activity was to sell copies of Mao’s Little Red Book to college students, and they published the Black Panther newspaper, which sold for 10 cents per copy with a peak circulation of 250,000 a week. The Panthers also raised funds from white allies and the state, but they understood that a movement cannot be independent unless it can raise its own funds. Whoever finances a group owns the organisation and this will be key as movements progress in Britain.
The newspaper was important in disseminating the political messages of the party. Mass circulation meant they had reach beyond their membership in black communities. Emory Douglas’s artwork was the perfect vehicle for spreading the ideas of the Panthers, for instance his iconic depiction of the police as pigs. Black Lives Matter has harnessed the power of social media, but this cannot replace the physical paper, which reaches the places the internet cannot. The presence of the Panthers selling the paper and engaging with the community was also important to embedding the movement at the grassroots. The revolution will not be retweeted, it will be led from the ground up by the communities who need it most.
The overt confrontations with police led to the Panthers being financially drained by legal fees and brutally assaulted by the state. This unfortunately led to the downfall of the movement and detracted from the grassroots activism the Panthers were leading. Today’s movements should remember that high-profile confrontations do not sustain an organisation, the first goal must be to root the struggle in the daily lives of black communities.
|
|
This Week in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Litigation |
|
|
Sunday, 16 October 2016 13:12 |
|
Ellis writes: "This past week saw several developments in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's legal fight to protect its drinking water, sacred history and children's future from the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Here's what happened."
Flags fly at the Sacred Stone Camp, Cannonball, North Dakota. (photo: Earthjustice)
This Week in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Litigation
By Phillip Ellis, Earthjustice
16 October 16
 his past week saw several developments in the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's legal fight to protect its drinking water, sacred history and children's future from the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Represented by Earthjustice, the tribe filed a lawsuit on July 27 against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after the agency granted permits needed for the pipeline to be constructed.
Here's what happened:
1. Last Sunday, the tribe’s request for an emergency injunction pending appeal was denied.
The emergency injunction would have halted construction of the Dakota Access pipeline on private land within 20 miles of Lake Oahe during the appeal process; construction is now allowed to continue as the tribe’s appeal is considered. But significantly, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel's Oct. 9 ruling acknowledged that the Obama administration still has the power to deny key permits for the pipeline.
2. The overall legal battle continues forward.
“This is not the end of this fight,” says Dave Archambault II, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Both the appeal of the preliminary injunction request and the District Court litigation continue to proceed.
3. The Obama administration has reiterated its decision not to authorize construction on Army Corps land, in the interim.
In an Oct. 10 joint statement, the Departments of Justice, Army and Interior said, in part, “… the Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access Pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe. We repeat our request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.…”
4. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe urged supporters to contact President Obama and ask that all permits for the pipeline be rejected.
In an Oct. 13 letter to President Obama, senators Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Edward Markey and Benjamin Cardin asked that the Army Corps require a full environmental impact statement, with tribal consultation, for the Lake Oahe pipeline crossing, and suspend the project's current permits.
5. The first listening session to hear from tribes on reforming the tribal consultation process for infrastructure projects took place.
Held by the Depts. of Justice, Army and Interior in Phoenix, the Oct. 11 listening session came out of the administration's game-changing Sept. 9 statement, which opened the door for genuine problem-solving by, in part, calling for national reform to "ensure meaningful tribal input" on major projects, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline.
|
|
ome was a republic until between 40 and 27 BCE, when the generals overthrew it. Military dictator Gaius Octavius put the nail in the coffin when he made himself Augustus Caesar on the latter date. The later satirist Juvenal, to whom we owe the phrase ‘bread and circuses,’ is clear that it was the transition away from the republic that required the bribing of the plebeian class in this way. He says it used to be they were bribed for their votes, but with the coming of dictatorship they had to be provided bread to keep them from rioting and cruel public spectacles to divert their attention from the reigning tyranny.
