Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

You’ve heard it everywhere: Trump’s “Muslim ban” is inadequate on the one hand — the list of seven nations fails to include, for example, Afghanistan — and unconstitutional on the other hand. We are told that the President’s executive order only makes us more unsafe — and, indeed, his actions have been met with dismay throughout much of the world.

A surprising thing happens, however, upon taking one small step back from the maelstrom: In doing just that, I was given pause to reconsider what I thought I knew based on mainstream media reporting — thanks to the work of fellow WordPress blogger Seth J. Frantzman, Ph.D.

Frantzman did something extraordinary — well, it ought not be uncommon but in today’s climate it most definitely is: he read the full text of Trump’s executive order. 

So what, exactly, is the deal with the list of seven nations pundits and reporters frequently cite?

The first thing that becomes apparent in reading the text of the President’s order is that there is no “list” per se. The nations thought to pose a disproportionate terrorism risk are referred to as “countries of concern”. In fact, only one country is implicitly named by Trump’s so-called travel ban: Syria.

The executive order contains another surprise. It expresses a not-so-controversial intent to improve vetting procedures to rule out unlawful practices against women, gays and religious minorities. From the order:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Based on media reporting, how many of us appreciate that the vetting the President is calling for concerns refugees’ tolerance of minorities, religious, sexual or otherwise?

How many of us, similarly, appreciate that the executive order, in Section 5 (e), also states that the Secretary of States and Department of Homeland Security can lift these restrictions on a “case-by-case basis”?

How many of us appreciate, finally, that what the media is calling “the list” is referenced in Trump’s order only indirectly — as defined, ironically, in legislation dating to 2015, signed by President Obama?

While there is no doubt that President Trump’s actions will continue to trigger controversy,  there is a deeper moral to the story that we cannot afford to overlook: We must begin to appreciate now, before civil unrest breaks out, that social media and media at large has found a winning formula: Fear. In local broadcast news, there is a longstanding saying among reporters and producers: “If it bleeds, it leads”. Speaking of a temporary travel ban as if it is permanent — as if the sole purpose is to hurt and harm Muslims — is the political equivalent of “If it bleeds, it leads”.

Far from tempting a Constitutional crisis, the vetting improvements that the President calls for concerns religious minorities (treatment thereof), women (treatment thereof) and sexual orientation (treatment thereof). To read social media and media at large, however, one would be forgiven for concluding that the only motive is pure, unadulterated evil. Instead, as is often the case in life, shades of gray emerge. This matters not because there is any requirement to support Trump’s actions — those are personal decisions every American has the right to decide for him- or herself. Unbiased reporting of events and actions matters not for the President’s sake but for ours. Why? Because the price of playing we the people against one another will be riots in the streets. Keep up this climate of hysteria driven by self-serving omissions and “alternative facts” and people are going to get HURT here — if not also abroad — because the rhetoric has become toxic.

To the extent Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was marked by hurtful or misleading rhetoric we must also appreciate that such behavior does not exist in a vacuum. Donald Trump is as much a product of the times as any of us. In a climate that is increasingly sensationalized, members of the Fourth Estate are hardly immune.

If ever there was a time to embrace the axiom “take it with a grain of salt”, this is as good of a time as any.

If and when violent clashes occur in the streets of this country, we can’t blame Trump and Trump alone. Although the President’s actions will, without a doubt, instigate controversy, what we do with that “bad news” is up to us. Do we bring down the house — do we destroy our hard work abroad and at home for the sake of proving this man dead-wrong? How far do we — ordinary Americans, yes, but in particular those in media and leadership — go to make a point?

We can no longer deny it: the exploitation of fear through media and social media has become its own force to be reckoned with — apart from whatever policy our political leaders propose. As Americans, we must begin to appreciate this much if only because our safety here and abroad depends on it.

As consumers of news and current events the new rule-of-thumb for the foreseeable future boils down to this: Do not accept any report, no matter the source, at face value. Do your homework: read the source documents, identify nuances and make up your own mind.

Putting a dent in the national hysteria — which must soon occur if we are to forestall an even more tragic global backlash — depends not just on those who occupy the White House. It depends on us — you and I. Today, more than ever, the basic efforts of an informed citizenry — with or without mainstream media cooperation — are paramount. We did not learn how to read and write merely to graduate high school or college and land a job. We learned everything we did — in school, from loved ones — for just these sorts of times. So roll up your sleeves and put on your thinking caps, America. The next four years are going to be one bumpy ride. But remember: This too shall pass.

###

Read Full Post »

Donald J. Trump’s Election Day upset defied polls and media expectations. Once the mud-stained curtain of innuendo and accusation is pulled aside, it becomes evident that the Republican candidate appealed to American voters on a diverse array of issues — some of which have been more pivotal than others. Here’s a closer look at how Trump managed to pull off the biggest Election Day surprise many Americans have witnessed. (more…)

Read Full Post »

“If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets”, entertainer and comedian Chris Rock told New York Magazine writer Frank Rich.

The wealthiest 20 individuals in the United States — a group small enough to fly together on a Gulfstream jet — have as much wealth as the 152 million people who comprise the bottom half of the U.S. population, The Institute for Policy Studies reports in “Billionaire Bonanza: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us“.

But what’s really driving the widening gulf between the haves and the have nots in America?

Among the more widely appreciated reasons for declining economic growth is the advance of automation. But other factors have begun to collide with technology to launch what may be a Perfect Storm: reshaping the economy to a “new normal” marked by economic uncertainty.

Another culprit is the rise of lopsided trade deals in the 1980s and ’90s, which have provided greater incentive to offshore jobs. The late billionaire and financier Sir James Goldsmith in his book “The Trap” predicted that poorly crafted free trade deals would produce a “net job loss”. In the early 1990s, Goldsmith testified before Congress advising against entry into another globalization deal known as GATT. Goldsmith also called out the Clinton administration on the Charlie Rose show in opposition to NAFTA, again predicting an outflow of jobs and capital.

If the wage stagnation of the late 1970s had not persisted to the present — some four decades! — the average American would earn $92,000 per year, reports Forbes in “Average America vs the One Percent“. In today’s dollars, those who identify as middle class are less secure than families that relied upon on a single breadwinner in the 1960s and earlier. We have gone from a society that can pay its bills and raise a family on a single income — and often a blue-collar income at that — to one in which the norm is for two able-bodied adults to work full time to support a family. (And because this is the new normal, illness and divorce are now the leading causes of child poverty and personal bankruptcy, according to the book “The Two-Income Trap“.) During this same period household debts have grown and savings diminished.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »