Presidential Privies

Remember last month, when the president seemed unhappy about refugees from certain countries and caused a kerfluffle that lasted longer than the usual one-day news cycle? It had to do with disposal of excrement, and where that might be done.

A bunch of people evaded discussion of the actual words used, apparently possible because of mis-reporting of the second syllable. Does it really matter whether he said  “shithole” or  “shithouse”? A privy is a privy.

What on earth makes a country a privy? A privy, just to be clear, is a toilet located apart from a dwelling or other building and is also known as an outhouse. Words being interesting in and of themselves, another meaning for the word is in the legal field:  “a person having a part or interest in any action, matter, or thing.” The origins of the word lie in Latin, privatus, meaning to be withdrawn from public life; this morphed into Old French, “prive” meaning private, and thence to the English “private.”

So in thinking about the deeply disturbing characterization applied by the president to Haiti and apparently, “African countries,” if we can get away from the vulgarity, we can remove the baggage because all a privy implies is withdrawing from public to undertake a private act—or, more intriguingly, someone (let’s say, a country?) that has a part or interest in any action, matter or thing, such as perhaps, Somalia and Libya are privies in the fight against terrorist organizations. (Strange right? But check the Oxford Dictionary; this is really a thing in legalese!)

The president, at the very least, should have availed himself of the first definition and removed himself from the company of other public servants if  he considers whole swathes of the community of nations to be no more than disposals for excrement and wants to say so. This is a reprehensible position, but as a private citizen, he's entitled to whatever misguided opinions he may have. As president of the United States, he's not entitled to inject such opinions into policy considerations.

Making a political demonstration (Albania)

Now that I’ve belabored the language beyond anything it merits, I’ll get to my point: why was this still a major talking point several days after it was said to occur? Not that I don’t agree that it’s a shocking statement. But there’s nothing new in the president denigrating people, either individually or collectively, in often appalling terms. Did observers just then notice? We can all be as affronted as may be, but it does beg the question why we haven’t been affronted before. And if we have, why is Congress not calling him on it? I don't mean a censure or a speech; I mean taking action that separates the nation from such irresponsible statements, something that clearly says "This is not the position of the United States."

Now a month on, in the context of immigration (which is where the comment arose) what is more to the point is the president’s erraticism on the underlying issue: in the public performance piece on January 9, 2018, where Congressional leaders and the president negotiated immigration in a televised meeting, the president said he’d let Congress decide what to do and would sign whatever Congress brought to him, so long as it addressed his four identified concerns.

When Congress suggested a bipartisan compromise solution (that did address those concerns) on January 11, the president said it was unacceptable, citing specific things that he wanted which were not being offered. In other words, Congress wasn't just to address his concerns, it was supposed to address them in the way he wanted them addressed. A wall, gosh darn it, is a big, beautiful physical wall and all the money for it has to be provided RIGHT NOW, for some reason, even before the hugely expensive prototypes have been fully evaluated or costed out.

So much for leaving it up to Congress.

He then claimed that Democrats had failed to negotiate, and were the reason that there was no progress. This again is a typical technique employed by this president: invite opponents to stand on a rug, then pull the rug out from under them, and say as they fall that they’re somehow responsible for the rug’s sudden removal.

In all the furor, Democrats ended up trying to force the president’s hand by shutting the government down. This was both heavy-handed and stupid; a good deal of the public support they'd garnered from the president's outhouse remarks was flushed straight down the sewer drain. Hard as it may be to do, Congress has to keep to the high road (or maybe it’s more accurate to say Congress has to FIND the high road).

Now the president's come up with his own solution--never mind what happened to his relying on  Congress; it's gotta be his way--which is cleverly designed to offer more than the Democrats asked for on DACA recipients, while draconian on all the other immigration issues.

This president, claim the members of his party, has to be worked with because, like it or not, he is the president, and besides, some of the GOP members like his policies. But here’s the thing: if everyone takes a deep breath, and realizes that they’re all privies to the U.S. national interest, and that the president is harming that interest, they might find a way to work together and work around the president, for better legislation that actually responds to the interests of ALL of the electorate. A veto can be overridden, after all.

It’s probably asking too much. It’s entirely possible that the actual outhouse might be Congress… though the excrement there is more in the nature of that excreted by large farm animals.

If All the Trees Fall, The Forest Disappears...

Harpswell forest, 2017

       You know that old saying about failing to see the forest for the trees?
       Listening to the latest wrangling and speechifying, I’m beginning to wonder if anyone’s noticing the trees are falling. If we keep it up, there may not be a forest to see at all.
        Let me back up. Someone recently questioned an observation I made about the president and his apparent disregard for the rule of law. I was asked, “Can you please tell us where Trump has ignored or crossed the line to negate the rule of law?” The question was civil, and made me stop and think about how to answer it in kind, leading me to give some thought to the concept of “rule of law.”
        The clearest example I could come up with of the president ignoring  what I understand as the rule of law is the pardon of Joe Arpaio. Readers may remember that the former Arizona sheriff was convicted after a bench trial of contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order. (The Sheriff’s people were using racial profiling to detain Latinos they suspected might be illegally in the country, and the court ordered them to cease doing so.) Upon conviction, there was a process available: first sentencing for the criminal conduct, then appeal, which if accepted, would lead to review on appeal.
          Before sentencing occurred, the president issued a broad pardon that included not only the conviction at issue, but also any other offense with which Arpaio might be charged thereafter in connection with the case.
          There are two rule of law issues here that concern me. First, Arpaio, as the record shows, blatantly ignored the court order and continued to perform in a manner contrary to law. Second, the president implicitly ratified that behavior by pardoning him. Moreover, rather than letting the judicial process play out, he issued the pardon even before sentencing.
          Whether you believe racial profiling is warranted to find illegal aliens or not, in fact the law does not permit it, and the sheriff is sworn to uphold and enforce the law. He did not do so, but arbitrarily substituted his own judgement for the law. And the president in essence ratified that abuse of authority and violation of his sworn duty to uphold the constitution.
           Fast forward through the woods to the Nunes memo concerning FBI investigatory procedures and possible bias by certain FBI personnel. If Joe Arpaio represents the felling of a single, fairly small, tree, the Nunes memo would take out a whole stand of trees.
           First, it’s a memo! It is not a report, hashed out and debated by the full committee. Due to its nature, it cannot support its claims and arguments with underlying evidence and citations; and there is a charge, which seems to concern some in Nunes’ own party as well as the opposition, that the wording approved by GOP representatives for the memo’s release was changed before it was submitted to the White House for review. If that were true, not even the GOP members on the committee approved the draft in the form in which it will be released.
           Second, there is another memo meant to stand against the Nunes memo and point out what the opposition feels are its inaccuracies. This memo must go through the same vetting process as the Nunes memo. Which means the White House has to approve its release. It may end up doing so, though I doubt it, but in any case, by that time, the damage from the Nunes memo will have been done. As I understand it, the House hasn’t approved release of the opposition memo.
           Third, the FBI has expressed grave concerns about release of the memo. I don’t know what the memo says, but based on Rep. Nunes’ history, it seems safe to presume it is drafted in a way that emphasizes anything that could bring the FBI as an impartial fact finder into question; if the complaints already heard about the memo are, in fact, the case, Nunes manipulates innuendo to reach a desired conclusion. Process isn’t empty. If the House Intelligence Committee has real concerns about the performance of the FBI, it should carry out an investigation. Release of a memo that everyone acknowledges is partisan serves no national interest.
            Watching this administration and its friends, we often learn eventually that where claims and charges they make are loudest, they themselves have engaged in the conduct they attribute to their opponents.
            All of this begs the broader question: is ANYONE in authority in Washington even remotely concerned about the fact that a very powerful foreign adversary has been and continues to play games with our national interests? Whether there was conscious collusion by GOP operatives to gain the presidency or not, there was interference by the Russians, and continues to be. Ferreting out these efforts is part of the FBI’s work and critically important to our future as a democratic nation. I’m not saying the FBI, or any organization, is perfect, but there are institutional ways of dealing with imperfections without cutting down the forest to obtain a specific tree.
             Or, perhaps the GOP is willing to let the forest go—they certainly seem prepared to see actual forests go—in favor of securing profits. Russia has built a fairly successful oligarchy, and our current president noted in a passing remark at the GOP retreat on 1 February that he’d accomplished more with regulation (getting rid of them) than a president who served 16 years…         Now, it’s rare for presidents to mention FDR’s length of time in office when rallying their troops, so the reference took me a bit aback.
             Then the story teller in me popped up: Is he thinking ahead? Why should a little constitutional amendment that sets a term limit on the president bother him? There’s a national emergency, after all, all those dark-skinned illegal immigrants, all that carnage… or if there isn’t an emergency yet, he’s sure there will be. It’s how we’ll unify and come together, he says….
             I don’t write horror tales, but if I did…
  
  

   

Living With the Tax "Reform"

A year or two ago, I visited my cousin in Belize, and was impressed by the ferry, mostly hand powered, that got us across the rivers near her home. Simple and effective, if not fast. No doubt cheap to both set up and to run. Was it tax or privately supported? No idea and had no reason at the time to ask. But…

Nobody likes to pay tax. Just like employers don’t like to pay wages, and homemakers don’t like to pay the grocery bill and young people don’t like to pay for music or movies. We all know we have to pay, but we want to pay as little as possible, right?

Taxes are one of the more complicated expenses we have to deal with, and how you come down on them depends on how you see yourself and your community… and your government. The recent “reform” of the federal tax system gives one cause to think about one’s view of the federal government.

If you see yourself as part of a national community, and your government as a sort of operations manager for that community, you may grouse about taxes and how they’re spent (military vs. foreign aid, developing fossil fuel or developing alternative energy, etc.) but you don’t have a problem with paying your share to keep the enterprise going.

Ferry, New River, Belize

If you see yourself as self-made and independent, and government as a limited objective adjunct, like an on-call expert for specific circumstances in a community that otherwise ought to be unrestricted, then there’s minimal reason for paying taxes. Gotta keep a standing army for defense, but no need to support education or take care of old folks. Local government can do that, right? In fact, parents can provide education and children can take care of their parents.

Of course, nice as it may be to imagine that Norman Rockwell, small town vibe, returning to it may have some consequences that are a bit less appealing than your kid learning the value of a dollar by having a paper route. (For one thing, even were we to end up pretty much an undeveloped country, it’s unlikely there are enough actual newspaper subscriptions to hire kids to deliver them. Although, with net neutrality gone, who knows? Maybe the physical newspaper would make a come back and kids can carry them door to door. But I digress.)

Government agencies are designed to implement what are primarily legislative rules. It’s impossible for Congress to pass a comprehensive law like a tax code, a commercial code, or an environmental protection law, that includes all the nuts and bolts necessary for the people on the ground to implement and enforce it. We’ve been largely fortunate in the U.S., despite the hysteria from those who just don’t think government should function as an arbiter or regulator, to have had a generally honest, very hard-working bureaucracy of professionals who perform these duties.

Taxes pay for their performance. If you have questions about whether we need these professionals, just look at our new tax bill. No one had read through it completely when it was passed, and even if they had, they couldn’t have analyzed every section. Now the IRS will have to both implement and enforce it.  Before it’s even gone into effect—which it’s doing in a frightfully short time, given its complexities—the IRS professionals are having to issue cautions about probable interpretations concerning questionable provisions. By the way, there will no doubt be lawsuits to urge differing interpretations when the time comes, which will also involve expenditure of tax money to pay for the government’s defense of its interpretations.

Since I think the federal government has an important role in making the country functional and in smoothing out potential chaos among the several states, I don’t mind paying taxes. But under this new scheme, I have considerable doubt about the harm that we all may face because the tax cuts increase government debt, which lessens government ability to perform the functions I think it should be performing.

And I confess that I resent it when I’m paying tax—which I will be—and the current inhabitant of the White House and his family are not only not paying tax, but are getting a windfall. My own circumstances are such that I won’t be awfully hurt by the changes financially, but I certainly won’t be helped.

To those who celebrate their tax cut but who aren’t corporate persons? Take a long look at what the real effect is of the so-called middle class tax cut, especially how it may look when it ends in eight to ten years. Be sure to invest some of that additional money in water filters and perhaps breathing masks, depending on where you live, because enforcement of what air and water quality standards remain in the wake of gutting the Environmental Protection Agency will be spotty due to lack of funding.

Plan your travel carefully, as infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Where taxes aren’t available to pay for improvements,  private investors will be invited to  build roads and bridges. They’re going to want to get a return on their investment, probably as tolls. But if the roads and bridges don’t promise a profit, investors may be hard to come by. Maybe we can get local ferries running again, in the less traveled parts of such rivers as the Kennebec or the Androscoggin in Maine?

And for heavens sake, DON’T get sick! Between a weakened Food and Drug Administration and the burdens on states by “reforming” Medicare and Medicaid, already hard-pressed hospital services will become more curtailed or more expensive or both. You should probably start growing your own food, too, just to be safe.

Or, alternatively, in November, let’s just get rid of these folks who talk a good talk that bears little relationship to reality, and get the country back on the track the majority of us thought we were on in 2016 and still support. It’s not a bad thing to learn we can’t take our founding principles for granted. Now that we’ve done that, let’s take the lesson to heart and turn out this coming November.

Or be ready to invite Belizean ferry operators to show us how to build low cost, low tech ferries to get our cars across the upriver inland fords.

Taxing the Forgotten People

One of my senators, Sen. Angus King (I-ME), wrote on Twitter in the wake of passage of the Senate version of the U.S. tax bill: “Tonight, I’m disappointed, and I’m angry, because the American people deserve better…. [The] at least $1 trillion in unfunded tax cuts… are not only misguided—they’re downright dangerous, and their effects will be felt by every aspect of our society, from the health of our economy to our national security interests.”

I’m afraid Senator King misses the point, but then, to his credit, Senator King tends to depict his colleagues as misguided rather than self-seeking or malicious. I’m just an aging occasional blogger with no constituency to serve, so I don’t need to give them the benefit of any doubt. I think the proponents of this legislation intend for the effects to be felt by every aspect of our society. The president has already sounded the call for the attack on social welfare programs, which offer a means to offset the unfunded tax cuts. If you're thinking Medicare and Social Security are safe, you might want to think again....

Watching this sham play out has been more than a little dispiriting.

 Ship of State?

The legislation itself, to the extent I know what’s in it as I write (and since I don’t have a copy of the 500 page document, and as I understand it, the vote was taken based on a bill that included hand-written changes to provisions representing last minute agreements, I have only a general idea of the provisions), is bad enough from my political perspective.

But beyond that, it demonstrates yet again how badly my country is broken. Because it was adopted by a straight party-line vote, without deliberation, without hearings, without study of its impact. The preliminary reports by bipartisan economic entities like the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee of Taxation dispute the claims of the bill’s supporters that the tax cuts will pay for themselves through the economic growth generated. Congressional leaders say they just don’t agree; in other words, they’ve take a bill that will vastly increase our country’s debt on faith that the trickle down theory already disproved will now emerge to save us all.

This smacks of the president’s view of reality: it is what he says it is, wishful thinking equated with fact.

The fight against the bill was also less than inspiring. I’m not sure that thoughtful discussion would have changed anything, but dependence on catch-phrases like TAX SCAM (yes, all caps) over-simplify and tend to speak to the converted. Senator Bernie Sanders raised some great arguments, but he kept yelling. The time for yelling is long past. No one listens to yelling anymore; it’s just part of the ambient noise.

What we, as a country, need to do, is shut up and look—really look—at what we’re doing to ourselves. Even the reports on the tax bill’s passage are couched in terms of fights: “GOP Victory!”

My question is: what about the country? Does anyone remember us? Because out here, there wasn’t a lot of love for this tax bill.  Those “forgotten people” the president likes to reference? That’s all of us, now. And it will get worse before it gets better.

Unless we stop fighting with each other, and listen to each other, and put our differences aside, so we can remind the folks in Washington that they work for us. If we don't do that, then Senator King was wrong--and we deserve exactly what we get.

The "Mean Streets" of English

        

English ... is a thief language. We steal verbs and nouns from other languages.... It's terrible. There's this great saying about English lurking in alleyways, knocking out other languages and rifling their pockets for spare vocabulary. (from The Untold Tale [The Accidental Turn Series, Book 1], by J. M. Frey) 

          
             Isn't that a delicious tidbit? The character who is speaking says she can't remember where she found that definition. Maybe Frey made it up? I went hunting for it, without success, but discovered something else: a Wikipedia entry for "thieves cant" that suggests all kinds of other things.

            Thieves' or rogues' cant, according to the discussion, was also known as "Peddler's French." English, the language that rifles through other languages to extend itself, was used by actual thieves for their own secret language, reshaping meanings to serve the purpose of the subculture.

            This idea would be more compelling if the same sort of thing weren't also known to exist in a South German and a Swiss equivalent. Elsewhere, I found a reference to a Russian version, too.

            Then, lo and behold, I found a web site titled "Thieves Guild" which has a whole page dedicated to the English thieves' cant [http://www.thievesguild.cc/about]; you can even study it in simple form!  The site (which looks like a Dungeons and Dragons spin-off) says you can also learn an advanced form,  but you'll need a high level thieves' guild official to teach you. (Be careful--this site  can easily be confused with another that's an on-line gaming site related to an imaginary world called Skyrim.)

            I love the concept of English as a thief language. (I've described it to English learners as a language that "borrows," but we don't give the bits and pieces back, do we? No. They've been appropriated, with or without permission.) As to the "rules" of English, they're more like guidelines, with all their exceptions and options--as is proper somehow in a den of thievery, don't you think?

          It does beg the question, however: if language and culture go hand in hand, one shaping the other as they make their way through time, what might we make of the concept of English as a thief language in the context of the cultures of English speaking peoples? 

          That gets into a deeper realm, one I'm not prepared to deal with just now. (But if you have thoughts on it, I'd love to hear them!) 

          Although... while I'm chewing on these questions, it occurs to me that English is increasingly being reduced to Twitter-speak, that is, use of abbreviations which allow communication via limited text access. Raising another consideration when thinking about language and culture and how one impacts the other, either way: does this short-cutting of expression also lead us to short cuts in our thinking? 

          We should keep an eye on the dark shadows in the alleys. There's no telling what might be hiding there. If English itself has a history of thievery from other languages, is technology now stealing from English itself, and creating another medium of expression, a reduction of the complex strands formerly entwined in the English language?

         

          

The Honorary Boy Scout President...

U.S. President, from Detroit Free Press via Michael Moore

   When things aren't going his way for one reason or another, President Forty-Five tends to go out on the hustings to get some love. True to form, amidst the healthcare fight, the president went to West Virginia to speak to the Boy Scout Jamboree, of which as the sitting U.S. President, he is honorary president.

    To a reasonably informed adult, even a supporter of the President, the speech was odd. The man was, after all, speaking to kids ranging from 12 to 18, and the speech--despite the president's initial protestation that he didn't want to talk politics--was largely a political speech that once again extolled Forty-Five's view of his own successes and both slammed his former opponent and criticized his predecessor.

     Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of this president, and I found the clips of his speech more troubling than usual, though I couldn't quite define why.  As the kids erupted in cheers, a thought flittered through my head: I'd never understood the Hitler's popular appeal, since I don't speak German and his speeches always sounded uninspiring, almost monotonous, though emphatically expressed. As Forty-Five's conversational ramblings elicited both cheers (for his win, apparently) and boos for President Obama (cleverly cast as failing to attend a jamboree) from the kids, film I'd seen of Hitler youth gatherings flashed through memory.

     Now I don't mean to cast aspersions on the Scouts (or on the kids that were stuffed into uniform in Hitler's Germany, for that matter).  Some of them no doubt questioned what they were hearing, and good for them; but what is certain is that they're kids, and at this event, they were with their peers in a big crowd, in the moment.

      Dr. Gene Beresin, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, picked up on this and did a piece for Boston's NPR station, WBUR. His observations resonated with me as I tried to get clear on why I was troubled by the clips: "[...] Trump's speech smacked of indoctrination. It had the potential to capture the developmentally normal aspirations of young boys and teenagers to idealize a 'successful hero,' and band together for his mission of winning, of defying adversity," said Beresin. "But then it subverted those natural aspirations," he went on, by giving the kids models that described a black and white, rather than a nuanced shades of grey, world, a model that applauded devaluation and denigration of people with whom one disagrees rather than developing the ability to listen and converse about differences. It promoted distrust of values that support our freedoms, like the free press; and it glorified individual winning, seen as attaining social status and wealth, rather than cooperative efforts aimed at the greater good. It  suggested that success came from "being feared and revered, not loved and respected." 

      But this is just one speech, right?  Boy Scouts of America did, for the record, apologize for injection of politics into the speech--though the terms of the apology were so tepid as to be almost meaningless. (A boy scout who attended from Evanston, Illinois was far more explicit  about the inappropriate tenor of the speech in the context of the Boy Scout mission than were his leaders!) So this is only a minor moment, a single pellet from a BB gun, let's say. 

      Except... any review of news directly related  to the administration just that one week more closely resembled a full load of buckshot, with pellets scattering across the political landscape. There were hits on what little remains of Congressional dignity and independence, on the institutions of a free press and electoral integrity, some punctures of the rule of law, and at least one frontal attack on voting rights. Not to mention an ongoing, insidious shredding of the Union, as the president and his surrogates continued to stir up their base against the so-called "elites" and "cosmopolitans" and others who question the president's assertions and conduct. 

      Jasper Davidoff, 17, the scout who protested the speech to the leadership of the Boy Scouts, wrote, "I believe that ... (Trump's) rhetoric told the young people looking to become better citizens that Scouting is a space for divisiveness and disrespect. I believe that many of the young people in attendance will interpret from [the] presentation that they should use Scouting to aggressively attack those they disagree with." This, he affirmed, is in direct opposition to the Scout Oath and Law.

      It's also directly contrary to making America great. We have a president who is intent on exploiting the divisions in our united states to the benefit of his own interests. We as citizens would do well to recall Abraham Lincoln's then prophetic words in 1858, when national division over slavery had stressed the bonds of union almost to the breaking point. "A house divided against itself cannot stand," he said. Two years later, the country split asunder. The wounds from that conflict still haunt us.

     A president who intentionally exacerbates the differences that divide us does the nation a disservice. It is to be hoped that our Congress and our courts rein him in, before he inflicts irreparable harm.

     

     

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?