Where Words Scramble...

            I've written before of the surrealism that at times seems to envelop the current political world. The Bannon appointment to the National Security Council at first blush seems to fit right into that. It certainly raises concerns.

Movable Type, Gutenberg Press

            Steve Bannon is one of the masters of spinning "alternative facts" on magic looms. I think of "Alternative facts" as manipulating words surrounding an event to create a narrative that allows a previously imagined belief or wishful thinking to be confirmed. For instance, RT News (the Russian state-sponsored news outlet), followed quickly by Fox News, reported on the Quebec mosque attack before any facts were released, with the result that a right-wing white French Canadian Trump admirer was magically transformed into a Muslim terrorist of shifting origin (first Syrian, then Moroccan). All that was needed was to take the words "attack," "terrorist," "mosque," "shooter," and "Allahu Akbar" and jumble them up with some verbs to get an imaginary outcome of a murderous gun-toting mosque-attending terrorist killing for God. 

              Those who perpetuated this chimera did little to clearly retract it once the truth emerged.  Canada publicly called out Fox, insisting they do so, but even after the correction was made, where was the hue and cry that lifts to the high heavens when Christians (or possible Christians, white people,  anyway...) are shot up by Muslims? (A point not missed by Canada's Kate Purchase, Communications Director for the Prime Minister, in her letter to Fox: "These tweets by Fox News dishonour the memory of the six victims and their families by spreading misinformation, playing identity politics, and perpetuating fear and division within our communities.")

            Indeed, Muslims have become the 21st century peril of choice, displacing previous ethnic perils. Bannon's hand was evident in the immigrant ban issued on 27 January by the White House, and in its defense as little more than an expansion on previous executive actions and "similar" to what President Obama did (for an explanation, see https://dontmesswithalibrarian.wordpress.com /2017/01/29/obama-to-blame-for-muslim-ban-country-list-huh/ ). Never mind the complexity and nuance of a policy that was actually shaped over several years and based on objective intelligence and analysis.  It's meant to keep us safe from people who want to hurt us, we're told, not Muslims per se. Never mind that the seven countries under the ban are predominantly Muslim.

            Even as "RESIST" is carved out of the sands of Acadia National Park's Sand Beach and "rogue" social media accounts push to keep free expression alive, the apparent chaos emanating from the White House seems a little too orchestrated, a bit too apparent. While the fevered flurry of evidently ill-considered executive actions tossed about since the inauguration amidst contradictory and confusing tweets and statements suggest something akin to incompetency, what if (remember I'm working on a premise of surrealism here) they denote precisely the opposite?

           

By Andrew Muench, Portland ME

            Slipping in the order for an influential political strategist to essentially supplant the Director of National Intelligence and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the National Security Council has an ominous feel. It is, after all, the Director and the Chair who are often called to speak unpleasant truth to power... Yet they are here relegated to attendance at inner circle NSC meetings (meetings of the so-called principals' committee) only when "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.”

            Now imagine a principals' meeting of the NSC to consider "civil unrest" in response to a presidential administration's executive actions.

            As I write, I've seen notices for an ongoing rolling series of marches: Scientists March on Washington, People's Climate March, National Pride March, Trump Taxes March,  and an Immigrants March, all between now and June.  Many of these are expected to have satellite marches in cities other than Washington. Such marches would not seem to be within the "responsibilities and expertise"  of the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, though it's arguable that they might be, at least marginally, within the "responsibilities and expertise" of the Director of National Intelligence.

            Last weekend, we saw Customs and Immigration personnel ordered to perform enforcement actions under an operationally flawed (never mind probably unconstitutional) executive order with little clear guidance as to the scope of their duties, and with no prior instruction or notice to the localities in which the actions were to be carried out. Intelligence might have been useful here, but the Joint Chiefs? Naah.

             There are also reports of attacks in North Dakota by law enforcement on the Standing Rock resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Veterans are vowing to stand with Standing Rock. Will the Chief and the Director be called in on this one?

            And let's not forget the current peril of choice: fake news sent out two shocked headlines topped by aerial photos that purport to be Muslims in the Chicago streets shouting "Death to America." "Why isn't the mainstream media covering this protest?" they ask. And I answer, "Palestinian protests in Chicago in 2014 and 2016 against Israeli actions don't warrant coverage on 1 February 2017." But most people already conditioned to distrust Muslims are unlikely to look any deeper than the headline, and if those people are out there shouting such things, they've got to be stopped! Right?

           

            It doesn't seem too far a stretch--in the surreal context I'm working in here--to muster law enforcement or military or quasi-military units to handle situations with a "potential for civil unrest," especially given the presence in the president's mind of "professional protesters incited by the media."

Memorials to Jewish Deportees

            I think--and I'm reluctant to say this--we have a situation before us that we have never faced in this country, not even in our worst times. We are treating this administration as, if not normal, then at least subject to normal constraints. I'm beginning to wonder if our clunky institutions can restrain an administration that is revealing itself as not remotely concerned about the limits built into the Constitution on executive power. Granted, those limits have been strained in the past, but up to now, they've held.

            The presidential oath of office requires the incoming president to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. I begin to wonder if we today have a case where  "to the best of my ability" acts as a loophole to fulfilling the oath.

            But that would only be the case if we really had transitioned from the real to the surreal... right?