Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Trinidad]

The right to free speech does not mean that you are entitled to a platform. A POTUS should know that. Perhaps it is time to block his twitter account to demonstrate that. ;)

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding at play here. Firstly, the university did not invite this guy to speak. There is a group of republican students (and I am sure that they are as ugly as one can imagine young trump supporters or MY enthusiasts to be) and they are a legally recognized student organization. I have no issue with that, btw, much as I am predisposed to loathe what I assume they advocate.

 

The university allows all such groups to hold events, provided that the group pay for the use of facilities, including a 'normal' level of event security.

 

The chancellor, on becoming aware of the event and vociferous student objections, issued a beautifully written explanation (I am too lazy/busy to find it and link it: I read it several days ago) and pointed out that the university would be acting contrary to its values were it to ban the event, while making it abundantly clear that he and the university as an entity rejected everything that MY stands for, and got in some pretty good indirect shots at trump for good measure.

 

Then apparently about 150 protestors, many if not all believed not to be genuine students at all, started acting up, including committing acts of vandalism and exhibiting a desire to be violent. The university reacted to this violence by cancelling the event, not to silence the despicable MY but to prevent a riot. Given that a MY supporter shot and killed an unarmed, peaceful protestor in Washington state, that seems like a reasonable act by a reasonable person.

 

Somehow I am willing to bet that Fox News didn't exactly convey reality and it seems that Fox News is the main source of information for the great orange despot in the WH.

 

Heck, in the last week we have the WH (the g.o.d. or his minions) pronouncing that:

 

a) based on Fox News stats, if Chicago doesn't reduce its murder rate, he'll send in the feds, whatever that means

b) mexico's army should be used to fight drug gangs, but because they are too scared, maybe the g.o.d. will send in the US military. aka invade a country with which the US has been at peace for more than a century

c)the yemen raid that the g.o.d, authorized, in which children were killed by US forces, a US Seal was killed, and the US had to destroy a 75MM airplane to avoid its capture, was a 'success', even while the military itself suggests that the raid was authorized (over dinner, it seems) by the g.o.d. with inadequate intelligence and no desire to learn more

d) in response to a rational step to avoid a riot, the g.o.d. threatens to remove close to $400MM a year to one of the world's leading research universities

e) state department employees who disagree with the arguably illegal EO on refugees should quit: more than 1,000 have signed on or endorsed a 'dissent' memo circulating within the State Department and the internal use of such a memo is a longstanding practice

f) at a prayer meeting, he spent his time bragging about his television ratings on Apprentice and insulting his successor

g) in a telephone call to a close ally, Australia, he boasted about the crowd at his inauguration, lied about the size of his electoral college win, and expressed a desire to renege on an international agreement, and then hung up on the Prime Minister

 

 

That is one astounding amount of incompetence, petulance and general all around idiocy, all in one week.

 

It is of no surprise to anyone, with any understanding of just how stupid, ignorant and prejudiced many people are, that all of this has raised his popularity with the morons making up his base. Oh..I shouldn't call them morons? I might somehow offend them and fail to persuade them? All progressives should pretend that these morons and bigots are nice people if only we would stop being rude to them?

 

Take a look at MY, and those who support him. Take a look at the republican leadership in congress. Even McCain, who surely loathes and detests trump, can't bring himself to do the morally right thing for the country he professes to love so much.

 

No: when people act like morons, bigots, cowards, and sycophants to a would-be dictator, the only correct response is to stop pretending that those people are nice people.

 

I appreciate the clarification. I had thought (wrongly) that the university had issued the invite.

[Winstonm]

They only have a right to peaceful protest. Once it became a riot, they were breaking the law.

 

Yes, they were breaking the law - it is called civil disobedience. I applaud it.

[mikeh]

Yes, they were breaking the law - it is called civil disobedience. I applaud it.

I could not disagree more. Vandalism and violence are not equivalent to civil disobedience. The latter should, imo, be based on the notion that one non-violently breaks what one considers an unjust law and (this is an essential ingredient) one accepts the punishment, while using the resulting trial, etc, to explain, as non-stridently as is possible, the immorality of the law. This is what Ganghi did. It is at least akin to Mandela's action, and Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks.

 

rioting forfeits the moral high ground and alienates the reasonable middle one is trying to persuade.

 

I see no inconsistency between this and my diatribe about trump's base...the bigots are usually not going to be persuaded by civil disobedience but they are not the target

[Winstonm]

I could not disagree more. Vandalism and violence are not equivalent to civil disobedience. The latter should, imo, be based on the notion that one non-violently breaks what one considers an unjust law and (this is an essential ingredient) one accepts the punishment, while using the resulting trial, etc, to explain, as non-stridently as is possible, the immorality of the law. This is what Ganghi did. It is at least akin to Mandela's action, and Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks.

 

rioting forfeits the moral high ground and alienates the reasonable middle one is trying to persuade.

 

I see no inconsistency between this and my diatribe about trump's base...the bigots are usually not going to be persuaded by civil disobedience but they are not the target

 

Maybe I am simply more cynical. When the tragedy occurred, I was the same age as the 4 students who were shot dead by the National Guard in Ohio. No one was ever held accountable for those deaths. Because of those deaths, I consider moral high ground a fantasy. Liberalism has been sleeping for many years - but it has a history of confrontation. And when an autocrat has control of the WH, promoting an autocratic white Christian theocracy, and his right-hand man has recently expressed the desire to destroy the existing foundations of government, it is not a time to play nice.

[rmnka447]

Yes, they were breaking the law - it is called civil disobedience. I applaud it.

Rioting is not civil disobedience, it's criminal violence. When outside agitators show up in black clothing and face masks, it's planned violence to silence dissent. That's behavior straight out of Nazi Germany and completely at odds with American values.

 

I have no problem with the students at the University peacefully protesting this speaker, if they disagree with him. They can disagree and protest all they want about the speaker being at odds with what they believe are American values. That's their right and a vital part of the clash of ideas necessary for a free society. But what they aren't allowed to do is prevent someone with differing views from exercising their right to express opposing views.

 

BUT, as mikeh pointed out, the sponsoring organization was a legitimate campus organization that got university approval for this speaker to speak. They also agreed to pay any extra security costs associated with a peaceful protest. There was no indication that the speaker or his audience would do anything other than exercise their rights to peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed in the Constitution and goes hand in glove with free speech. Abrogation of those rights by violence is against American values.

 

I was appalled to see the clip of a peaceful young female student wearing a "Make America Great Again" that got pepper sprayed by one of the thugs. Wearing that hat was an exercise of her right to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution. You may vehemently disagree with her opinion, but shouldn't condone the unprevoked violence against her. That violence isn't an American value.

[hrothgar]

I could not disagree more. Vandalism and violence are not equivalent to civil disobedience. The latter should, imo, be based on the notion that one non-violently breaks what one considers an unjust law and (this is an essential ingredient) one accepts the punishment, while using the resulting trial, etc, to explain, as non-stridently as is possible, the immorality of the law. This is what Ganghi did. It is at least akin to Mandela's action, and Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks.

 

rioting forfeits the moral high ground and alienates the reasonable middle one is trying to persuade.

 

I see no inconsistency between this and my diatribe about trump's base...the bigots are usually not going to be persuaded by civil disobedience but they are not the target

 

I disagree that rioting is not an appropriate part of political protest.

It just takes things up a notch.

 

However, I very much agree that anonymity is unacceptable.

If you chose to go down this path, you need to do so openly and be willing to pay the price.

[jogs]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/03/trump-taking-steps-to-roll-back-dodd-frank-financial-regulations/

 

Trump rolls back Dodd/Frank.

[andrei]

Facts are horrible, pesky little things that can so disrupt a narrative...especially when the narrative is a concoction of fantasies and lies.

 

Given that a MY supporter shot and killed an unarmed, peaceful protestor in Washington state.

[Winstonm]

Rioting is not civil disobedience, it's criminal violence. When outside agitators show up in black clothing and face masks, it's planned violence to silence dissent. That's behavior straight out of Nazi Germany and completely at odds with American values.

 

I have no problem with the students at the University peacefully protesting this speaker, if they disagree with him. They can disagree and protest all they want about the speaker being at odds with what they believe are American values. That's their right and a vital part of the clash of ideas necessary for a free society. But what they aren't allowed to do is prevent someone with differing views from exercising their right to express opposing views.

 

BUT, as mikeh pointed out, the sponsoring organization was a legitimate campus organization that got university approval for this speaker to speak. They also agreed to pay any extra security costs associated with a peaceful protest. There was no indication that the speaker or his audience would do anything other than exercise their rights to peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed in the Constitution and goes hand in glove with free speech. Abrogation of those rights by violence is against American values.

 

I was appalled to see the clip of a peaceful young female student wearing a "Make America Great Again" that got pepper sprayed by one of the thugs. Wearing that hat was an exercise of her right to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution. You may vehemently disagree with her opinion, but shouldn't condone the unprevoked violence against her. That violence isn't an American value.

 

If you start a war, you can't then whine that the other side isn't playing nice.

[barmar]

I disagree that rioting is not an appropriate part of political protest.

It just takes things up a notch.

A "notch"?

 

Screaming protests through a megaphone is taking things up a notch. Vandalism, looting, and violence are simply unacceptable forms of protest.

 

Civil disobedience generally means committing victimless crimes, to draw attention to unreasonable laws (often the ones regarding the action you're committing). So unless you think laws against murder are inappropriate, killing someone can hardly be considered civil disobedience.

 

Civil disobedience is usually (but not always) equated with nonviolent protest.

[mikeh]

 

I suspect, you being who you appear to be, that the following sentiment will be alien to your worldview, but I thank you for correcting my mistake. The protestor was in fact only critically wounded by gunshot(s) to the stomach area. I am sure that reflects the peaceful motive of his assailant....after all, one must only be trying to warn someone when one shoots him in the stomach.

 

As for your other attempt to correct me, I know of no evidence that the computer science engineer shot was active in what was, apparently, a raucous demonstration in which some were apparently throwing rocks or bricks in the direction of the riot-gear clad police. If he were, then I withdraw the 'peaceful' part, but I see no reason to assume that he was, absent information to the contrary. You may think differently.

[hrothgar]

 

 

Yeap, facts are tricky

 

Mike definitely got one thing wrong. The protestor was shot in the stomach went into the trauma center, however, he did survive.

 

With this said and done, I have not seen any claims that this protestor was involved in any kind of violence (and have seen statements that he was trying to damp things down)

 

Personally, I don't think that there is going to be much definitive that anyone can say until the trial. Even then there will probably be questions.

 

Here's one thing that I do know:

 

The individual who did the shooting claimed that he got sucker punched way before the shooting took place and that his "Make America Great Again" hat had been stolen.

His choice to remain in the area and then claim that he needed to shoot someone should be viewed extremely skeptically...

[mikeh]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/03/trump-taking-steps-to-roll-back-dodd-frank-financial-regulations/

 

Trump rolls back Dodd/Frank.

No he doesn't

 

He may want to or, more accurately since I doubt that he actually knows what Dodd/Frank really is, somebody close to him does. Hmmm.....he has appointed several Wall Street insiders to his cabinet and Bannon got rich on Wall Street before Breitbart. I wonder...no...surely it couldn't be that the mega-wealthy close to trump are working to get themselves and their friends even wealthier at the expense of the rest of us? No....surely not.

 

Fortunately, at least for now, the g.o.d. in the WH lacks the ability to single-handedly repeal legislation. Of course, the republicans in congress are just as corrupt. Indeed, more so. The g.o.d. and his cabinet are in pursuit of naked self-interest, while most of the republicans are simply bought and paid for: they don't get the billions that Wall St, gets, they only get hundreds of thousands in donations, lots of perks, and (especially in Congress) the chance to become a lobbyist in due course.

 

all the g.o.d. is doing is issuing a silly, posturing EO to direct that his appointees look into what changes should be suggested. He doesn't need an EO to do that, but this looks good on Fox news, and impresses the gullible, who then go make silly, inaccurate posts to various forums.

[hrothgar]

A "notch"?

 

Screaming protests through a megaphone is taking things up a notch. Vandalism, looting, and violence are simply unacceptable forms of protest.

 

Civil disobedience generally means committing victimless crimes, to draw attention to unreasonable laws (often the ones regarding the action you're committing). So unless you think laws against murder are inappropriate, killing someone can hardly be considered civil disobedience.

 

 

When I was a young man, my grandfather (who was a passionate Wobblie) told me that the day the American labor movement stopped killed mine owners was the day the labor movement started to die...

 

I am a strong believer in the social contract and prefer living in a society governed by such.

With this said and done, the decision to abide by the social contract is a voluntary one and individual can withdraw from it if they want.

 

If any individual choses to do so, they are acting outside the law, deserve to be punished, and should expect to be punished.

 

However, I'm not going to claim that I wouldn't resort to violence if the conditions seemed right.

 

(Nor do I believe that individual or even mob violence is outside the American political tradition. We like to whitewash this, but it happens all the time)

[rmnka447]

If you start a war, you can't then whine that the other side isn't playing nice.

 

So you're justifying that violence? There's no justification for Nazi tactics left or right. Open your eyes! These thugs were as much alt-left crazies as the KKK are alt-right crazies.

 

Their behavior shouldn't be condoned by anyone.

[Winstonm]

So you're justifying that violence? There's no justification for Nazi tactics left or right. Open your eyes! These thugs were as much alt-left crazies as the KKK are alt-right crazies.

 

Their behavior shouldn't be condoned by anyone.

 

I am not justifying it. I am explaining it. The violence began at the Trump campaign rallies, encouraged by rhetoric from Trump himself to crush dissent and act without Constitutional authority.

 

There is strong evidence - from appointees to actions to previous statements - that the core of this administration (Trump, Bannon, Flynn) views all Muslims as inherently anti-American and potentially dangerous. If instead of Muslims, the administration targeted Jews, would you still make the same argument?

 

This is what happens in populist uprisings - things get ugly.

[mikeh]

When I was a young man, my grandfather (who was a passionate Wobblie) told me that the day the American labor movement stopped killed mine owners was the day the labor movement started to die...

 

I am a strong believer in the social contract and prefer living in a society governed by such.

With this said and done, the decision to abide by the social contract is a voluntary one and individual can withdraw from it if they want.

 

If any individual choses to do so, they are acting outside the law, deserve to be punished, and should expect to be punished.

 

However, I'm not going to claim that I wouldn't resort to violence if the conditions seemed right.

 

(Nor do I believe that individual or even mob violence is outside the American political tradition. We like to whitewash this, but it happens all the time)

Richard

 

You and I see eye to eye on most political matters, but I do think that you are in the wrong here.

 

Politics is a battle for the hearts and minds of the voting public. As in many countries, the US appears to be sharply divided with an ever-diminishing persuadable centre. It is that centre that will make the difference in 2018 and 2020, along with the degree of mobilization of the base.

 

Violence by those identified with 'the left' will be used by the right to demonize the left. Right now, because the right is in power, the bulk of protests will be by the left, so it will be easy to spin any political violence as emanating from the left, even if (as in Seattle) the worst violence is from the right.

 

The sight of violent protestors hiding their faces behind bandanas and balaclavas, etc, is virtually guaranteed to stoke outrage on the right and to mobilize them to vote.

 

It is likely to demoralize many on the left...those who feel that violence is a betrayal....and keep them at home on election day.

 

It is likely to persuade those few who are persuadable that the left doesn't have the answers.

 

And the irony is that I suspect that the 'activists' who commit these violent protests don't vote. I am not speaking of the many peaceful protestors, merely of the minority whose goal appeared to be to create a violent confrontation.

 

Italy in the early 1920's and Germany under the Weimar Republic saw open battles in the streets between communists and fascists/Nazis, and look where that ended up. Violence seems to 'work', in terms of bringing about progressive change only when the bulk of the populace is supportive of the cause. When the populace is split, history seems to indicate that the authoritarian side prevails. This makes sense to me. Many people want leadership...they are attracted to authoritarians, and that attraction seems to be magnified in times of fear and uncertainty, which goes a long way to explaining trump now. In addition, the military and police forces attract and offer meaning and fulfillment to the authoritarian personality. They operate according to clear lines of command, and with great structure. So the military and police forces will tend to side with those advocating for the right.

 

Unless and until there is a significant shift in the way the republican base thinks about trump, political violence will likely be counter-productive for the progressive movement.

 

Btw, the Wobblies lost, and it wasn't because they stopped murdering people. It was because the police and army were against them, and they couldn't mobilize the middle class to share their outrage.

[hrothgar]

Richard

 

You and I see eye to eye on most political matters, but I do think that you are in the wrong here.

 

 

Note that I am not currently involved in violent protest. However, this decision is grounded in arguments about efficacy rather than morality.

 

Couple notes of my own:

 

1. I would not be surprised to see a "Reichstag fire" take place. Violent acts will be attributed to the left regardless of whether or they are true. In turn, this provides a certain degree of freedom

 

2. The Wobblies most definitely lost. However, so did the American labor movement...

[Winstonm]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/03/trump-taking-steps-to-roll-back-dodd-frank-financial-regulations/

 

Trump rolls back Dodd/Frank.

 

Even if he could - he can't - why would you cheer? A repeal of Dodd/Frank does nothing for the middle class working person but is instead a reward to the wealthy bankers called "elitists" by the Trump mobs.

[Winstonm]

While I certainly don't condone violence as a normal political tool for use, it is impossible to argue that many, if not most wars are not politically motivated events. I doubt King George would have turned over the deed to the colonies if instead of revolution there had been a sit-in.

 

The question now is how unique is this time in politics. Can normal protocols still work? Perhaps liberals see this administration more corrupt than it really is; perhaps right-wing supporters misconstrue who they really are supporting. It is still a little early, but the indications so far are not promising for normal politics.

 

Steve Bannon has said that the media does not understand the depth of the populist uprising; I would suggest Bannon has likewise underestimated the decency of the vast majority of Americans.

 

But decency comes after removal from office of the current tenants.

[mike777]

As for Uni of Cal.

 

 

There is a difference between a riot and a protest...that was a riot.

 

Agree that both can be a political act.

 

 

Not sure what blame the Univ. had

 

some reports say about 150 showed up in black after the protest started and turned it into a riot.

 

 

Again it seemed the Univ acted in good faith, no blame that I see here---

------

I would hope the Univ reached out to request MY formally speak as a point for free speech and to stand up against the violence.

I do not view MY as the moral equivalent of Nazis marching in Skokie...I suspect some poster may

[mikeh]

Note that I am not currently involved in violent protest. However, this decision is grounded in arguments about efficacy rather than morality.

 

Couple notes of my own:

 

1. I would not be surprised to see a "Reichstag fire" take place. Violent acts will be attributed to the left regardless of whether or they are true. In turn, this provides a certain degree of freedom

 

2. The Wobblies most definitely lost. However, so did the American labor movement...

I agree that a Reichstag fire could take place. The more the 'left' is seen to espouse violence, the easier it will be to sell that to the public. The communists in Germany in the 1920's and early 1930s were often indistinguishable in behavior and tactics from the national socialists. That is not surprising given what had been happening in Russia and the aftermath of WWI, which had millions of demobilized and unemployed soldiers, and the Russian civil war followed by the takeover of Stalin and the creation of the Comintern in 1919, for the purpose of destabilizing and violently overthrowing democracies (and other forms of non-communist governments) around the world....most especially in industrialized Europe which Marx had thought to be the logical birthplace of a workers' state.

 

History aside, and recognizing that eschewing violence merely out of a fear that otherwise a Reichstag fire scenario becomes more plausible may seem cowardly, my view remains that violent protest is exactly what Bannon and Fox want to see.

[Winstonm]

A move to a different discussion. I do think this is germane. (emphasis added)

PRRI's 2016 American Values Survey, released Tuesday, found Trump and Clinton voters near evenly split on how they perceive the nation's trajectory over the last 66 years.

 

About half of all Americans questioned in the nonpartisan group's study — 51% — said things have changed for the worse since the 1950s, while 48% disagreed.

 

The differences were far more pronounced when it came to Trump and Clinton supporters, PRRI found. About 72% of those likely to vote for Trump said American culture has devolved since the 1950s. A nearly equal number of likely Clinton supporters, 70%, said things had gotten better.

 

White evangelical Protestants had the most negative view of how the country has changed over the last six decades: 74% told PRRI they felt the culture had gotten worse since the days of poodle skirts and sock hops.

 

When you compare the last line to this Atlantic article and factor in the notion of authoritarian voters, the election seems more understandable.

 

How to change these minds, though, is a difficult question because the basis of the belief is emotive rather than cognitive.

[barmar]

The attitude of white evangelicals is hardly surprising. Their religious ideology is totally contrary to the progressive shift towards acceptance of LBGTQ people, and this is also not a segment of the population that's known for racial tolerance. And economically, I expect there's a large overlap with rural blue-collar workers and farmers, who have seen their jobs erode in the past few decades due to automation and offshoring.

 

Trump has vowed to bring manufacturing back to the US, but even if he's successful, it's not going to bring back most of the jobs -- the American factories will still be highly automated, and that's just going to increase as technology keeps improving. And it's not even clear how well his plan to increase tariffs on imports will work -- work is so cheap in places like Mexico and the far east that it may be worth paying a 20% tax to avoid having to pay American wages. Yes, prices will go up, but not as much as if they brought manufacturing home.