The Pundit

Trump: Danger or Threat?

Remaining hopeful that Trump won't threaten our freedom and safety is irrational and reflects the troubling normalization of Trump that is happening in the media and politically. This is no time for business as usual.

Who Knows?
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland writing made an important point when he wrote:
"...We should also listen closely to those commentators raised under authoritarian regimes. They note that leaders in that mould often spread falsehoods, or at least try to make facts seems hazy and unknowable. If a chunk of the population are not sure what’s true and what’s not, their willingness to fight back is weakened. They are more likely to greet each new and deteriorating development with a shrug of confusion: “Who knows?”

More darkly still, the authoritarian regards telling the population lies to be a test of strength. The Trump White House will now watch closely to see who repeats Spicer’s falsehoods without protest and who objects. Among the media, the former will be rewarded and the latter punished. But it’s even more basic than that. Authoritarian strongmen crave control. If they can control what you believe – even make you believe that black is white and night is day – then their power over you is total. Not for nothing did George Orwell’s 1984 have the omnipotent Party persuade Winston Smith that if a Party official said he was holding up five fingers, then he really was holding up five – even if Smith could only see four..." From "Sean Spicer is a Groucho Marxist, asking us not to believe our own eyes" in the Guardian.

I also need to point out that the reason why we don't know exactly what Trump will do next is because he is such a liar and has changed his positions many times in recent years. For example, he previously supported the Iraq invasion (which he lies about) and legal abortion, viewpoints he has since reversed. Also many of the things that he has proposed, such as the Muslim ban, are clearly unconstitutional and appear unlikely to survive our system of checks and balances. I do not believe that our constitutional protections against tyranny can survive the constant onslaught of attacks from Trump and his allies unless a significant number of people decide to stand up, put their careers and bodies on the line, and protect our (representational) democracy with all of our might.

Fighting the Cancer
Being too open minded can be a problem. Not every side to an issue is equally valid. Some people are simply misinformed. Others have a financial or other stake in the outcome that they hide. Many people lie, forget, misunderstand or misrepresent facts or their own beliefs. Some people just have bad ethics or judgment. Instead of assuming that every opinion is valid, I think it is best to assume that everyone has a hidden agenda and is lying until proven otherwise, as a jury in a court room or the review panel for a scientific journal should do.

Journalists should help us understand the truth but they often fail to do so. We can not rely on them. We need to use our ears, and brains. We need to learn who we can trust to provide us with reliable information. In my opinion, you should believe the experts AND YOUR OWN EYES AND EARS when it comes to Trump. I hope you will understand how dangerous Trump can be and believe in the expertise and accuracy of credible political commentators, human/civil rights activists and organizations.

Trump told us he was going to do bad things. No other major party candidate for president has ever advocated for so many immoral, bigoted and illegal policies.

His speeches and tweets revealed that he had no respect for civil liberties, due process, the rule of law, common decency and FACTS.

His speeches and tweets revealed that he was clearly a compulsive liar with a ridiculous sense of proportion and a complete lack of appropriate priorities. He appears to be a sociopath. No other major party candidate for president has ever lied to the extent that Trump has.

His supporters told you they wanted bad things to happen. (mass deportations, oppression of Muslims etc)

He was openly supported by neo-nazis, KKK members, segregationists, misogynists and most of the world's right wing dictators.

He was strongly opposed by every political leader with a track record of decency and good work.

He was opposed by virtually every single credible human rights, justice and equality group.

Most of these groups are non-partisan and do not endorse candidates, but they made exceptions for Trump because they saw the threat that he posed to our freedom.

He was opposed by virtually every credible political commentator, editorialist and journalist. They warned us repeatedly about the ramifications of his proposals.

He was opposed by a plurality of voters. His victory was not the will of the voters/people, it was a result of the rigged electoral college system, voter suppression and gerrymandering.

His victory has emboldened the bigots. Hate crimes have increased and the neo-Nazis etc. are coming out of the woodwork and getting a voice in the media.

Despite his own words and all the evidence, many people have declined to take any action against him because it would create "animosity" and increase partisanship. His choice of advisers and cabinet members, his policy announcements and his actions have created a wilder level of insanity and corruption than could have ever resulted from the electoral college respecting the will of the majority of voters. Trump deserves no more tolerance and acceptance than cancer does.

I am not advocating freaking out, I advocate taking action, NOW. Actions such as speaking out at every opportunity, signing petitions, writing letters and making calls to politicians, marching, and joining and contributing to human/civil liberties, good government, environmental and peace groups.

This is About Essential Civil and Human Rights
I should note that it is important to understand that human/civil rights are absolutely essential for good government. The moment that some people are excluded, censored, silenced, threatened or endangered by the government or culture, then genuine democracy (representational or direct) is impossible. The ugly fact (rarely mentioned) is that the USA was not a democracy until every adult could actually vote, circa 1965 after enough people took to the streets and demanded equal rights. Before that, African Americans were at the mercy of their oppressors and their needs were not taken seriously by government. Governments can not, and will not, effectively address any problem or issue to the benefit of all people unless all people have a voice.

The civil rights movement did not succeed by bringing the opposing sides together to forge a compromise that would make everyone happy. They succeeded by loudly proclaiming that oppression is simply not acceptable. They did not compromise and try to obtain only the amount of rights that the majority would peacefully accept. Martin Luther King did not hang around with George Wallace and Lester Maddox and try to make peace with or develop a compromise with them. Instead they made it clear that there would be no business as usual until they had their rights. They knew that some people would not change their minds anytime soon, so they ignored and vilified the bigots in power. They did it legally (mostly), politely and non-violently, but without tolerance of bigotry, appeasement or compromise. It helped that there was a threat of violence from some activists to bring the oppressors to the table.

To be absolutely clear, the views of Trump supporters should not be suppressed, censored or ignored. They need to be heard, understood and evaluated. They should never be taken at face value. When they lie, we need to loudly prove it and never trust their credibility again. When they hide their real (often financial) hidden interests in an issue, that needs to be exposed as widely as possible When they advocate violence, harm or hate they should be criticized, shamed, shunned and boycotted. Let's lift up the rocks and see who is under them.

The Cult of Ignorance

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov

An acquaintance found that quote offensive. It is offensive to the ignorant. Tough shit, because it is also quite true. I believe that we can have a consensus reality, facts and science. I strongly believe that people can not make good policy decisions without access to all of the relevant facts. Most voters do not have exposure to these facts. I believe that people usually make good decisions when they are exposed to the relevant facts and understand them.

Perhaps the widespread reluctance to face facts is because so many people are not accessing enough good information. My involvement in Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Drug Policy Alliance, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Media Democracy and the ACLU has provided me with access to a lot of information rarely seen in the mainstream media. I also learned a lot from the best online newspaper I have found, the Guardian. Also the Nation, New Republic, American Prospect, and the Progressive. These are liberal leaning publications but they have a great respect for FACTS. Readily VERIFIABLE Facts. I also watch the mainstream media periodically.

I spent fifteen years debating politics online with conservatives. I understand their thinking better than most people. I've come across some conservatives online who seem like basically decent people. I'm sure most of them seem fine in person most of the time, but the anonymity of the internet gives people the opportunity to express what they really think. It is not pretty. At best they are ignorant and irrationally terrified of bogus threats dreamed up my Fox News et al as weapons of mass distraction (ie. Shariah Law in the USA, which several states passed legislation about) and a bit selfish. Many are much, much worse.

Chart from Business Insider

The Role of the Media

There is a misconception that the mainstream corporate media has a unified political agenda. That is incorrect.

The media in general has just two agendas:
1. Make profits
2. Oppose regulations and legislation that might reduce their profits and support regulations and legislation that might increase their profits.

Otherwise, they do not have a unified political agenda. They are too big to be unified. For evidence of their real agenda, consider this statement from the CEO of CBS:

"Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.

Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.

"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.

Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.

"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said.

"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves...." Hollywood Reporter

Making fat profits requires content, including news content, that excites and titillates the viewers. Trump played the media like a violin by routinely feeding the media with outrageous statements that generate surprise and outrage.

The mainstream media is mostly accurate, but is often guilty of failing to cover important issues until they are forced to. A great example is the Dakota pipeline. Those issues were discussed for years in many of the publications I mentioned. It wasn't until a substantial crowd and a violent counter action occurred before the media covered the protests. The TPP, Net Neutrality and Keystone pipeline were also ignored until presidential candidate Sanders (not the senator, who was always ignored) spoke out and/or the movement obtained enough critical mass to be considered newsworthy.

The media is also frequently guilty of false equivalence.

"News outlets covering the presidential election have made the mistake of treating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as two equally flawed candidates. That false equivalence has made it harder for voters to understand the categorical differences between their options on November 8.

That approach hasn’t been appropriate this election cycle. Clinton is not a flawless candidate -- her campaign has been dogged by conspiracies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private email server as secretary of state. But she is a relatively conventional one -- abiding by both constitutional and political norms.

Trump, on the other hand, represents a dramatic break from mainstream American politics. He threatens the First Amendment, demonizes minority groups, cozies up to white supremacists, championed the birther movement, invites Russian interference in the election, promises to arrest his political opponent, lies constantly, lacks the most basic interest in and knowledge of public policy, says he may not accept the results of the election because he believes it to be “rigged” -- the list goes on and on...

That approach, treating both candidates’ scandals equally and hoping voters come to the correct conclusion, is a big part of the reason that voters view Trump and Clinton as being similarly untrustworthy, and view their missteps as similarly concerning. Audiences internalize the way the media covers each candidate in relation to the other.

Treating two wildly different candidates as if they’re equally flawed is not “fairness” -- it’s a journalistic failure." How False Equivalence Ruins Trump-Clinton News Coverage