Because the only acceptable answer in the GOP is that the Civil War was about Big Government!
It makes little difference what Nikki Haley actually believes. She simply cannot be trusted. She has shown herself adept at saying things that sound relatively sane one sentence, and then making appeals to the MAGA Right with the next.
She is either a fanatic herself, or (my belief) disingenuously willing to glibly court the fanatics.
And she is still arguably the least-worst of the folk at-all-possibly-getting-the-GOP-nomination-for-President .
Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
The former South Carolina governor instead said it was a dispute over how ‘government was going to run.’
UPDATE:
Aaaand … Nikki Haley backtracks, admits that, yeah, slavery was the cause of the Civil War … which will doubtless draw more criticism from both sides.
She then deflects and says the person who asked the original question was a “Democratic plant” … which is altogether possible, but doesn’t address her inability to give the answer she knows is true in the first place.
So Haley is willing to tell the truth about the Civil War when forced to, but not when she isn’t. Got it.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), was eminently quotable (though his tendency to re-use key phrases in multiple sermons, speeches, and writings, sometimes drives a quotation collector to distraction). Here are a few thoughts from him from my quotation collection that I find germane even today, over fifty years after King’s killing.
We must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.
“A Christmas Sermon on Peace,” radio broadcast, CBC (Canada) (24 Dec 1967)
King’s focus on peaceful protest and civil disobedience remains a challenge to this day.
A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
“Beyond Vietnam,” speech, Clergy and Laity Concerned, Riverside Church, New York City (4 Apr 1967)
King was writing during the Vietnam War, but the issue is just as real today.
Now Jesus himself saw the power that competition holds over men. He did not ignore it. Yet he does something with the conception of competition that hadn’t been done before. He takes the conception which has been used for lower purposes and rescues it from many of its dangers, by suggesting a higher method of its use. This is how he applied the term to his disciples. He saw them in danger of using it for low purposes. They wanted to compete for reputation and position — “which of them should be accounted greatest?” Jesus says so, if you must use the power of competition, if you must compete with on another, make it as noble as you can by using it on noble things. Use it for a fine, unselfish thing. “He that is greatest among you shall serve.” Use it for human good. Who shall be the most useful. Compete with one another in humility. See which can be the truest servant. It seems that Christ says, “Use it, but use it for higher and holier purposes. Use it not to surpass one another in esteem, but use it to increase the amount of usefulness and brother-help.” Such conceptions of competition lead to the surprising and ennobling position that there can be competition without hate and jealousy. Behold! You can struggle to beat and yet rejoice to be beaten.
King had a repertoire of turning around familiar talking points — in this case, rejecting the idea of competition being necessarily bad, but noting that it depends on what one is competing for.
We must not seek to use our emerging freedom and our growing power to do the same thing to the white minority that has been done to us for so many centuries. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man. We must not become victimized with a philosophy of black supremacy. God is not interested merely in freeing black men and brown men and yellow men, but God is interested in freeing the whole human race.
“Give Us the Ballot,” Speech, Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, Washington, DC (1957)
King always made it clear that the struggle for equal rights for blacks was to the benefit of all Americans, not just blacks.
In the final analysis, love is not this sentimental something that we talk about. It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.
“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)
King saw the power of love going beyond sentiment to actual action.
We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.
“Loving Your Enemies,” sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)
The summary of King’s teachings on peaceful protest and civil disobedience.
Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you. Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.
“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)
Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the canceling of a debt. The words “I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you have done” never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally for his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, “I will forgive you, but I won’t have anything further to do with you.” Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.
“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)
Forgiveness is hard.
This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God’s image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God’s redemptive love.
“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)
In a time of division like today, words for thought.
Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.
“On Being a Good Neighbor,” sec. 2, sermon, A Gift of Love (1963)
We sometime hear that the problems of poverty should be left to private charity. But even if that were adequate to meet the need (and it never has), it merely treats the symptoms.
The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism — that’s the most dangerous type. And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.
“Rediscovering Lost Values,” sermon, Second Baptist Church, Detroit (28 Feb 1954)
I have more respect for considered atheists than those who claim to follow a religion but, by their actions, do not.
As long as there is poverty in the world I can never be rich, even if I possess a billion dollars. As long as millions of people are inflicted with debilitating diseases and cannot expect to live more than thirty-five years, I can never be totally healthy even if I receive a perfect bill of health from Mayo Clinic. Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.
“Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution,” Commencement Speech, Morehouse College, Atlanta (2 Jun 1959)
Empathy and compassion.
It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, “Wait on time.”
“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” sermon, National Cathedral, Washington, DC (31 Mar 1968)
Sometimes waiting is appropriate. But sometimes it’s an easy excuse for not acting.
We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.
“The Birth of a New Age,” speech, Alpha Phi Alpha banquet, Buffalo (11 Aug 1956)
It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the glaring noisiness of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. It may be that our generation will have repent not only for the diabolical actions and vitriolic words of the children of darkness, but also for the crippling fears and tragic apathy of the children of light.
“The Christian Way of Life in Human Relations,” speech, General Assembly fo the National Council of Churches, St Louis (4 Dec 1957)
A frequent theme of King’s, nudging audiences who thought of themselves too easily as the “good guys.”
Any church that violates the “whosoever will, let him come” doctrine is a dead, cold church, and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.
“The Drum Major Instinct,” sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta (4 Feb 1968)
It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.
“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)
A riot is the language of the unheard.
“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
“The Trumpet of Conscience,” Steeler Lecture (Nov 1967)
I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.
“Where Do We Go From Here?” Southern Christian Leadership Conference Presidential Address (16 Aug 1967)
My personal disillusionment with the church began when I was thrust into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery. I was confident that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would prove strong allies in our just cause. But some became open adversaries, some cautiously shrank from the issue, and others hid behind silence. My optimism about help from the white church was shattered; and on too many occasions since, my hopes for the white church have been dashed. There are many signs that the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. Unless the early sacrificial spirit is recaptured, I am very much afraid that today’s Christian church will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and we will see the Christian church dismissed as a social club with no meaning or effectiveness for our time, as a form without substance, as salt without savor. The real tragedy, though, is not Martin Luther King’s disillusionment with the church — for I am sustained by its spiritual blessings as a minister of the gospel with a lifelong commitment: The tragedy is that in my travels, I meet young people of all races whose disenchantment with the church has soured into outright disgust.
Playboy interview (Jan 1965)
King’s disappointment with white Christian church response to his message came through repeatedly — and with justification.
Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind the Marxists like to see — an opiate of the people.
Stride Toward Freedom (1958)
King focused on civil rights, legal equality before the law. But he also was a proponent of economic rights and justice as well.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
“I’ve Been To The Mountaintop,” speech, Memphis (3 Apr 1968)
King’s last public speech. He was assassinated the following day.
What is the meaning of July 4? Hint: It’s not about showing off tanks and jets.
When does the United States celebrate on July 4, “Independence Day”? What is it that John Adams wrote would be celebrated?
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
Is it the first noteworthy conflict with soldiery of the nation we rebelled against? Nope, would be the Boston Massacre, September 13.
How about the first defined military conflict with the British, at Lexington and Concord? Nope, that’s April 19.
Any other major Revolutionary War battles? Bunker Hill? Crossing of the Delaware and Trenton? Saratoga? Nope, those are June 17, December 26, October 17.
The British surrender at Yorktown? Nope, October 19. The Treaty of Paris, where Great Britain and the United States formally ended the armed conflict, recognizing American independence? Nope, September 4.
Unlike a lot of other countries, we don’t celebrate our national birthday based on a battle or war or even a violent protest. We have different days set aside to celebrate our military (Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.). We even have a different day set aside for the patriotic symbol of the US Flag.
Nor is it a date chosen to celebrate great individuals and their accomplishments, even among that generation. Presidents Day (the conglomeration of Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays) shows up in February. Not many still celebrate Thomas Jefferson Day (April 13), though it was once a big thing.
July 4 represents something special, transcendent of any one battle, any one enemy, any assertion of martial power, any one individual. It celebrates the ratification of the Declaration of Independence.
And the Declaration isn’t about the force of arms, but a document — a political document, a philosophical document.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It declares those human rights and, as a ramification of them, the right of a people to change or throw off a government that commits offenses against them, a government in which the people have no voice, no ability to consent in how they are governed.
It’s an imperfect document, if only for the compromise of removing a clause condemning slavery in order to get the required unanimity from the Southern states. But even that omission does not change the overarching message of human equality and human rights.
The Declaration is not a statement of military might. It is not about how we have the strongest army, the shiniest cannon, the pointiest bayonets, the fiercest soldiers, the most powerful ships of war. It is, instead, about values, about what is important, about the natural rights of human beings. It isn’t a screed against a specific foe so much as it is a statement of principle as to what political truths we stand by, what is important to us, transcending all national boundaries and political divisions.
It could have been a document about military conflict and war. It could have talked about how we’d beaten the British, how we were all taking up arms, how we would fight to the last man. It could have been about Us vs. Them, centering on that as its basis for declaring revolt against the Crown. Instead, it spoke of a higher set of principles, principles that applied no matter who was the strongest, who was the most powerful, indeed, no matter who actually won the conflict already begun.
All honor to Jefferson — to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
That’s what we celebrate today. And those who seem obsessed with making it about military power, a display of our our might making us right, about how this day makes is bigger and better and more important than anyone else … it seems to me that they’re not only missing the point of the Declaration of Independence, and the day celebrating its ratification, they’re actively opposing it.
The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar
It’s the terrorists — the forces of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda — who intended their 9-11 attacks as a weapon, as a means of dividing and weakening the US and its society, of fomenting a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim.
It didn’t quite work. There was war, but it was — with the help of people like (yes) George W. Bush — not framed as a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim, but against the specific factions, forces, and individuals ostensibly behind the attacks (with an opportunistic veering off into Iraq, but that’s another story).
The rise of Donald Trump and his nationalism, his continuous invective against the Other — the Muslims, the immigrants, the exploitative allies and trading partners, the city-folk, the gays, “socialists,” the transgender, the women, the non-white, the poor — has all too easily picked up that weapon of fear and resentment and ignorance and tribalism.
And now, with a Twitter attack not just in passing, but pinned to the top of his stream, Donald Trump has picked up that 9-11 weapon that Osama bin Laden laid out for him and is using it as a weapon against someone who represents everything he stands against: a Democratic woman of power who has been democratically elected to oppose his agenda.
In doing so, Donald discredits any reverence America still feels for 9-11. He turns it into a cudgel to use against his opponent. He politicizes it, hugs it to himself like he hugs the American flag, not because it really means anything to him, but because he can weaponize the gesture against others. He diminishes that attack’s significance far more than Omar’s in-passing reference to it in an address that wasn’t even about 9-11. He makes it all about him and his political position and his nationalistic movement.
And he does it at a moment when self-avowed fans of his are being arrested for making death threats against the person he’s continuing to so prominently attack.
Yeah, Donald, I can recognize the real enemy of America here.
Well, unless they’re talking about the former to discredit the latter.
Critic socialist politics and economic theory in the US — on the upsurge within the left wing of the Democratic party — have a particular gun they love to pull out.
[Alabama Rep. Mo] Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”
Yeah! Hitler was a socialist, thus socialists are like Hitler!
Adolf Hitler (1924)
It’s rubbish logic (Hitler was an Austrian, thus Austrians are like Hitler; Hitler was a national leader, thus national leaders are like Hitler; Hitler was a war veteran, thus war veterans are like Hitler; etc.). Worse than that, it’s nonsense: Hitler was not a “socialist” as the word is used today, and not even as the word was seriously used 90 years ago. Hitler considered socialists (like the actual “German Socialist Party”) both as rivals and as philosophically opposed to his own beliefs — and, as he rose to power, brutally suppressed them.
Bear in mind that in the 1930s, party / faction / gang labels like “worker” and “labor” and “socialism” were way cool, regardless of actual economic theory and politics. A reaction against the Great Depression, class warfare from above, and the German national trauma from WWI, any number of groups adopted those names to gain popular support, just as they bandied about “patriotic” and “national” in the same way.
Beyond that, the article below goes through the origin of that German party’s name, some very specific German history that led to Hitler and the party he eventually took over, and precisely what Hitler thought about “socialism” as it was actually advocated in 1920s-30s Germany. It’s worthwhile reading that I won’t repeat here, except that (to vastly simplify) Hitler was looking to bind up all of the right society (productive “Aryans”) under a fascist regime, with himself as the leader, and with full support of (and profit to) the industrialist and military leadership and wealthy and nobility. In his own words:
Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic… We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.
Not quite a “Green New Deal,” or Medicare-for-All.
Instead, his “national socialism” allowed Hitler to rise to power with the full support of the “right kind” of people, alongside industrialists and corporations and the rich and powerful — the latter of whom were full partners with the Nazi apparatus, supporting his war effort as well as assisting in and enabling Hitler’s death camps, to which were sent Jews, but also a variety “Others” — Romany, gays, mentally disabled, and, yes, political opponents like union organizers and socialists.
As the article author notes:
Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.
Or a republic, for that matter.
One can argue for or against socialism as a whole (bearing in mind the broad array of arrangements and theory that fall under that label), or even better about specific proposed policies that strike one as “socialist”. But if you’re going to do so, do it without non sequitur references to “National Socialism” in Germany in the 20s and 30s, if you’re looking to actually have the discussion and not merely throw around smears.
Trump has decided that fear-mongering about socialism is his path to the White House in 2020.
The question is not *whether* we will be a "socialist" nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for "capitalist".) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
The question is not *whether* we will be a “socialist” nation, but how much and in what areas. (Ditto for “capitalist”.) This is not a binary decision, dog-whistles notwithstanding. https://t.co/uYmK0GeguZ
We are not a capitalist country. We do not have a free-wheeling free-market economy. We do not live in a Hobbesian war of all-against-all, Dickensian workshop, Ayn Randian anarchy. Indeed, most people reject Scrooge’s idea of a capitalist ideal for those who don’t succeed:
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
We do have, in the United States, what are properly deemed socialist institutions. We have Social Security Insurance for the elderly, and Medicare and Medicaid for the poor and aged and disabled. We help poor people heat their homes in the winter. We have public-built roads, and police and fire-fighting forces that have their costs divided up amongst the whole population, not just those who explicitly call on them. We have national (and state, and local) parks, not just private preserves for those who own them. We have regulations about pollution, and about safe food, and proven drugs; about overtime pay and child labor and a five day work week; about requiring lenders to tell you the truth with some degree of clarity when you borrow money. We have tax incentives for public policy ends, some of them to support individuals, some of them to support businesses. We provide support to farmers to help them deal with wide-swinging fortunes in commodity prices and the weather.
Those are all “socialist” ideas — and many of them were attacked as dire deep-red socialism when proposed, threatening the moral fiber of freedom in our country when they were passed.
That said, we are not a socialist country, either — at least not in the state-controlled-economy Stalinist-Communist model, which is what the anti-socialist commentators condemn. Supply and demand largely control the economy. People can start (and end) businesses. People purchase goods and services almost solely from privately owned companies and corporations that are “public” only insofar as their stock is sold to the public. People can spend their money pretty much as they prefer, and pass on much of their wealth to their children (or to their cats, or to a charity of their choice).
There are no Democratic candidates who are proposing the sort of Stalinist/Maoist collectivist state as their ideal — even the stereotype of Bernie in his wildest dreams.
But that’s not what you hear from Trump and the GOP. From their perspective, the entire Democratic field consists of Levellers and people who want to tax everyone at 100% and allocate money out to everyone on an even basis, regardless of whether they are patriotic “maker” entrepreneurs or lazy “taker” welfare queens.
One could have a serious discussion about individual policy proposals — Medicare for All, Tuition-free College, Child Care subsidies for working parents, whatever — looking at the pros and cons of their goals, the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards. Heck, one could have a considered relitigation of those socialist programs and policies already in our society.
But instead, the Right is pivoting Red-baiting mode, coloring any sort of “socialist” proposal as hurtling down Perdition Road toward a Venezuela or Cuba or Soviet Union. (If pressed, they’ll also condemn “Euro-Socialism” as a terrible evil, no matter how happy the people of the more socialist states in Europe poll as being.)
Ideally, as I said, we would debate individual proposals and policy points. Apparently Trump has decided — and the GOP have agreed to follow — the concept that anything done for the common good is some sort of crazed communistic “socialism,” and therefore should be painted as a horrifying evil. The goal of the Democratic candidate in 2020 — and of the party in general — has to be to note those areas where we already have “socialism” in what we as citizens accept as normal and beneficial, and clarify that the discussion should not be about facile philosophical labels, but about specifics as to what people do or don’t want, and the costs and benefits of pursuing that.
“Capitalism” and “Socialism” are neither necessarily contradictory, nor are they a binary choice of all-of-one or all-of-another. Making that clear is the best messaging that Democratic politicians could put forward, in opposition to the scaremongering already coming from the Trump campaign.
Glad (?) to see that the US isn’t the only country with nationalists who demand that people hop-to and make proper compulsory displays of patriotic respect or else be punished.
In this case, it’s Australia, and the target is a 9-year old girl (and her parents).
Crap. If Europe gets rid of Daylight Saving Time / Summer Time, the US will never do the same, just because the Europeans did it first (cf. the metric system).
The ICC was set up by international treaty to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide charges around the world. The US was one of seven countries to vote against the treaty, alongside such other stalwarts of the rule of law as China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen.
Over the last 15+ years, the ICC has been going along, doing its thing. It’s not an unproblematic body, hamstrung in many ways, with concerns about both politicization of how it selects cases and debate about how those cases intersect with national sovereignty and constitutional protections.
That said, the US attitude towards the court has been, at the very least, unseemly for a supposed champion of world justice and human rights, largely, it seems, for fear that actions by the US or US officials might be investigated and indictments handed down.
And, in fact, word that the ICC is considering opening an investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan, as well as crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians, has led to Donald Trump, the guy who can’t stand indictments, others’ judgment, or international cooperation, to strike preemptively at the organization. In a draft letter put together by unilateralist John Bolton, the Trump Administration is threatening sanctions and prosecution of ICC judges and prosecutors who have the temerity to investigate the Afghan War.
“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters. […] The draft speech says the Trump administration “will fight back” if the International Criminal Court formally proceeds with opening an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. service members and intelligence professionals during the war in Afghanistan.
If such a probe proceeds, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, put sanctions on any funds they have in the U.S. financial system and prosecute them in the American court system.
Man, remember the good old days when the US at least tried to seem like the Good Guys? I mean, make that a country like “China” or “Iran,” and it would sound tonally perfect.
On the other hand, one has to appreciate the melodramatic flourishes involved.
“We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us,” says Bolton’s draft text.
Yeesh.
Trump administration to take tough stance against The Hague’s ICC
The United States on Monday will adopt an aggressive posture against the International Criminal Court in The Hague, threatening sanctions against its judges if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.
There are a lot of people who will tell you that the US has always been a pro-US corporation bully; if so, Trump is stripping away any pretense to being anything else.
I mean, threatening third world countries with economic sanctions, treating to cut World Health Organization funding, if WHO passed a resolution supporting breast feeding rather than formula feeding?
The US will be a century trying to live down what this President (who was almost certainly a bottle baby) has done in less than two years.
Consider the irony. A country famously founded by a search for a better life — freedom of conscious, economic opportunity, etc. — has no clue why people flee here.
Anti-immigration folk have focused on bogus results — "they're stealing our jobs [that none of us want to work in]" and "they're horrible criminals [even though immigrant populations tend to commit less crime than native-born ones]" — while making up a weird fantasy about why these folk are coming to the US — "they want to live on lavish welfare checks and collect Obamaphones [even though neither of those are a thing]."
Yes, there are criminals who come over the border illegally. But the vast majority — as demonstrated by the brutal hardship of the journey to get to the US southern border, or to cross it — are desperate, fleeing horrifying poverty and terrific domestic violence. That's why folk are coming with their families — because they don't want to leave their spouses and children behind in such an awful place.
One can debate whether people fleeing such horrible circumstances should be allowed in, but to simply deny that, and to instead lambaste them as frauds, murderers and rapists, and lazy bums, displays a profound cruelty, as well as an inability to try to address the root causes of such illegal immigration (beyond the dependence of a significant amount of the American economy on such workers).
I mean, get a load of these libtards and the America-destroying policies they suggest — open borders, work permits for Mexicans, clear rejection of even a fence (let alone a wall), reference to their own family members being part of the invading horde, and, of course, suggesting all those folk who have sneaked across and are stealing our jobs and raping our women and breeding anchor babies like rabbits should get free stuff, as if they were as good as US citizens.
Where the hell did they dredge these un-patriotic crazies up, Europe? Good thing America knows better than to listen to traitors like this!
Kid and parents aren't being tracked together except during initial handling by CBP — as they move forward, their cases are being handled by very different agencies, which don't seem to be following such tracking … such that there are documented cases where the parents have been deported back home, and the kids are still somewhere in the US, difficult to track down even for immigration lawyers here, let alone for parents in impoverished villages in Central America.
The separation policy, especially give that it seems to be being done mostly for publicity and to give Trump leverage in immigration debates with the Democrats, is demonstrably inhumane. That it's being bungled, or handled in such a haphazard and neglectful fashion by intent, is unconscionable.
(Dear Readers Who Decide to Say, "Well, it's the parents' fault for crossing into the US illegally," you have both missed a number of points and are showing a lack of empathy that borders on psychopathy, and you will be booted to the door.)
(Dear Readers Who Decide to Say, "This is all the Democrats' fault for [fake historical reasons] / not giving in to Trump's demands," do some actual research [start with https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-law-separate-families-passed-1997/], and also consider what actions on the President's part you are justifying in his pursuit of his own political advantage.)
Remember when Kim Davis refused to issue gay marriage licenses and Republicans were all like “You can’t do that! The Bible says to obey government law!”
Well, kinda-sorta, but hearing pious Sessions quoting Scripture to bolster the Trump Administration’s decision to separate all children that are brought across the border by illegal immigrants or by families legally seeking asylum … well, it’s a pretty grim stretch, not to mention somewhat nauseating.
My first thought on reading these headlines was that we were going to get some sort of Old Testament horror show about how God told the Israelites that they could steal the children (usually as slaves) of the tribes they conquered (except for the cases where God say they could be out-and-out killed) — and that that would be what Sessions was relying upon.
Nope. It’s less bloody-handed, but even more menacing than that.
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” [Sessions] said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”
Okay, that’s already a dubious argument, but let’s actually look at that passage (Romans 13:1-7):
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
So we’ll set aside the Trumpian / GOP multi-faceted irony of quoting a passage that also says, “Hey, those taxes? Pay up!”
Let’s also set aside that this was Paul writing a letter that was readable by any Roman authority, to members of a church in a movement that was already being scowled upon for being a bit dodgy and possibly disloyal to the Empire.
Instead of all that, let’s look at what this passage basically says: The government was appointed by God, to punish evildoers, so put up with what it does, otherwise God will use it to get you.
That sentiment is profoundly un-American. It’s certainly the direct opposite of anything that resembles traditional GOP conservatism. Granted, Sessions is the Attorney General — the chief law enforcement officer (under the President) of the federal government, so one would expect a certain fondness for “OBEY!” as a philosophy.
Still, it’s a breathtaking defense of governmental authoritarianism, esp. for someone who claims to be Christian, and is a member of a political party most often associated with conservative Christianity, a movement that often rails against actions by the Evil Government.
Imagine, if you will, if the Obama Administration had devoutly cited Romans 13 as a defense for the laws and policies it advanced. “Obama declares Islamist theocracy, claims to rule by divine right” would have been the mildest of responses from the Religious Right and every Republican politician.
Sessions’ feeble and pernicious defense of his and his boss’ policies about separating children from their families is the height of hypocrisy, and one that should give any American the chills at its sweeping implications (so, any legal policy of the government should be considered the dictates of God?). And it reminds me of another quotation:
❝The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!❞
— William Shakespeare (1564-1616) English dramatist and poet. The Merchant of Venice
Witness various senior Administration folk trying to sum up the Trump Doctrine on foreign policy, which the post title is the most provocative example of.
Then there’s “Permanent destabilization creates American advantage,” because being the erratic drunkard down the street who occasionally shoots his gun at the moon and/or passing cars is just what we want to be and do. Oderint dum metuant.
Also suggested: “No Friends, No Enemies” — treating everyone on a transactional, cash-and-carry basis (“What are you doing for me this week?”), because … well, why should we treat Canada any different from Russia, or the UK on a different basis than China? After all, we’re America, and have no need to worry about having allies, because who would dare be an enemy to us?
Sigh. And to think, at one time, the GOP were all gung-ho for Reagan and his “Shining City on a Hill” metaphor for America’s place in the world. What the hell happened?
Trump wants the entire Philadelphia Eagles team, as Super Bowl champs to visit the White House.
Some of them decline to visit, esp. given Trump’s shenanigans about the anthem protests.
So Trump disinvites the entire team.
“The Philadelphia Eagles are unable to come to the White House with their full team to be celebrated tomorrow. They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country,” Trump said in a statement. “The Eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation, but the 1,000 fans planning to attend the event deserve better,” he added.
Trump said Eagles fans are still invited to the White House “to be part of a different type of ceremony — one that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem. I will be there at 3:00 p.m. with the United States Marine Band and the United States Army Chorus to celebrate America,” he said.
To my mind, Trump disgraces the flag and the anthem through his grandstanding on the subject more than any protester ever could.
