trump

Blog, Essays, Monishots

Trump’s Neo-American fascism is close to the tipping point.

As you grow older, you’ll see white men cheat black men every day of your life, but let me tell you something and don’t you forget it—whenever a white man does that to a black man, no matter who he is, how rich he is, or how fine a family he comes from, that white man is trash. ~ Harper Lee  Donald Trump’s style and leadership will remain a thesis objective for scholars long after he has left the stage. A few months before he shocked the world with a victory over Hilary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States, I had read a report of Trump’s response to the tragic massacre in Orlando by Omar Mateen, the radical son of a Muslim refugee. Candidate Trump in his usual manner had condemned the political left while standing in solidarity with the LGBT community. He warned about the dire threat of radical Islam, and further reiterated his initial call for a blanket ban of Muslim immigrants. He said, “When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats. After a full, long overdue security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.” After two and a half years in the saddle, Trump has shown no intention of throttling down. Rather he has continued to ramp up the ante with a barrage of unhinged typo infested twitter rants and gusty excoriation of enemies and even allies. Hardly will a day pass by without an offensive statement coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. His recent attack on four congresswomen of colour has been widely condemned and quite rightly so. But like I keep saying, POTUS 45 is a lot smarter than many people think. This new manoeuvre appears to be a well thought out campaign strategy to put the democrats in a spot because his words cannot legally be labelled racist. This perhaps explains why the impeachment motion by Rep. Al Green was roundly defeated by a 332–95 vote. Whatsmore if some equally offensive utterances attributed to those four have been applauded by the same section of the media why would they now be irked? Some would argue that whatever xenophobic statements credited to the ‘squad’ — as they are now known —  cannot possibly have the same impact since they are not in the white house but together these four congresswomen command an increasing number of followers that could significantly affect the outcome of the 2020 race. And Donald Trump knows this. However, the truth is that his latest pastime, though a political scheme is not a new phenomenon. It brings with it a nauseous reminiscence of a past when America built different types of walls in a bid to preserve the warped hallucination of white supremacy as I will illustrate presently. Besides the fact that the initial US Congress started work in 1790 by restricting eligibility for naturalisation to the freeborn and the white, immigrants were still pouring into the country for much of the nineteenth century. However, at the peak of the immigration boom in 1921, a certain Calvin Coolidge penned an article which suggested that the teeming number of immigrants was an impediment to national development. Citing elite scientific scholars from the Ivy League, Coolidge who will later become the country’s Vice President argued that “biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend” and that “the dead weight of alien accretion stifles national progress”. Together with some leading academics, the new Vice President sought to rationalise ethnically based racism by propagating the theory that certain immigrant races were biologically immune to diseases that would normally harm others. Asians were especially targeted. Italians, Slavics and even Jews were not spared as media editorials and op-eds ran savage pieces disparaging them as “Asiatic hordes and swines living in vast masses of filth that would kill a white man”. It didn’t take long for Congress to acquiesce and subsequently the Johnson-Reed Act which is perhaps the harshest immigration law in US history was passed. And just like Trump’s recent Muslim ban, immigrants were shut out of America based on their origin. Ever since then racist scholars have deployed dubious anthropology and questionable theories to propound the genetic superiority of the so-called ‘Great Race’. So you see, for the uninitiated, Trump’s political foray into neo American fascism may be as offensive as his wall and immigration policies are unpleasant but they are not dystopian actions that Americans and indeed the world are witnessing for the first time from Washington DC. For all its glittering immigration record, American history is dotted with unsavoury expositions of xenophobic assaults on immigrants, and oftentimes these attacks have been driven by race-based nativism. But then the racists never had a free ride. They have always met a more than capable opposition in the liberals and a robust pushback from Americans both white and coloured. Together these groups struggled and made sacrifices through the civil rights movement that culminated in the passage of several laws in the 1960s. Of particular note is the 1965 Immigration And Nationality Act which abrogated the use of national origin quotas thereby ensuring that the country’s immigration policies made it stronger in diversity as some of the following facts from a recent article in Time Magazine disclose. In the US, 1 in 4 tech companies established from 1995–2005 had an immigrant as either the founder, president, CEO or CTO. Over 70% of the tech workers employed in Silicon Valley are immigrants and over 60% of the 25 biggest US tech companies were founded by immigrants. Apple’s Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant and Google’s Sergey Brin is a Russian immigrant who first stepped on US soil with his parents at the tender age of six. In 2017, Fortune listed 500 companies, 43% of which

Blog, Essays

South Africa needs to box clever in its David versus Goliath duel with Trump

  Recent actions by US President Donald Trump’s administration are severely straining relations with South Africa’s new government led by President Cyril Ramaphosa. And relations between the two governments are likely to worsen. The first blow was last month’s threat by Trump’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley that countries unwilling to tow the US line would be punished. According to a list of the 2017 General Assembly vote counts released in March, South Africa was one of the 10 least supportive countries. It voted with the US only 18% of the time. More recently, Ramaphosa’s expressed disappointment at Trump’s withdrawal from Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is likely to raise the US president’s ire, especially as South Africa presses ahead with plans to expand trade with Iran. And relations between the two countries could sour further following South Africa’s decision to recall its ambassador to Israel in protest against the killing by the Israeli army of over 50 Palestinians protesting against the relocation of the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The relocation came after Trump recognised the disputed holy city Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. South Africa has a lot to lose. As the only liberal democracy on the State Department’s list of ten UN members most critical of US policies, it is also the only one that benefits substantially from extensive trade and assistance agreements with the US. Trump’s announcement that South Africa wouldn’t be given exemption from his recent unilateral hikes in tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium has not yet been linked to its UN voting record. But commentators have raised this possibility. Losing out on the exemption could cost South Africa 7,500 jobs. The impact on the country’s economy could be far worse if Trump moves against South African manufactured products that currently enjoy special access to US markets under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). In my view this threat may be exaggerated. And Trump’s targeting of South Africa would be rightly criticised as an attempt to undermine Ramaphosa’s efforts to reform and revitalise his nation’s troubled democracy and economy. Given the size of the US economy relative to South Africa’s, many will view this as another case of David versus Goliath, with most rooting for David. South Africa’s challenge will be to exploit those conditions and facts that might disarm its more powerful adversary. Several are already evident. Disarming Trump First, the timing of the Trump administration’s actions are happening just as Ramaphosa’s commitment to redress corruption and misrule under his predecessor Jacob Zuma is receiving international recognition and praise. In addition, Ramaphosa is embellishing South Africa’s image in a year-long domestic and international campaign celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of the iconic Nelson Mandela. He is pledging fresh and determined efforts to uphold the Mandela legacy. In this spirit, Ramaphosa lobbied and received unanimous African support for South Africa’s bid for another two-year term on the UN Security Council. This is almost certain to be affirmed next month by the UN General Assembly in a vote that’s bound to raise South Africa’s standing internationally. The following month former US president Barack Obama comes to Johannesburg to deliver the annual Mandela lecture. The world will once again be reminded of Mandela’s values and ideals, as well as the contrasts between Trump’s character and that of his predecessor. US President Donald Trump. EPA-EFE/Michael Reynolds Second, it’s worth revisiting the State Department’s UN voting scorecard. The votes show that the mood of the General Assembly has become much more hostile since Trump became president. On the 92 issues that required UN General Assembly votes last year, the US was backed in only 31% of its resolutions – the lowest level of support since 2008. This reflects the fact that Trump’s immediate predecessors tended to be pragmatic. Although for decades majorities in the General Assembly disagreed with the US on issues such as Palestinian rights, and the merits of US military adventures, there was nevertheless cooperation in other areas. But Trump has long been dismissive of the UN and multi-lateralism in general as of little value or importance to the US. Had South Africa voted with the US a few more times it would have joined the league of African states such as Kenya (20%), Ethiopia (21%) and Nigeria (22%). China (22%), Brazil (23%), and India (25%) aren’t much higher. Third, the US claim that it was refusing to exempt South African from the steel and aluminium tariff hikes for “national security” reasons was laughable and might not survive World Trade Organisation scrutiny. South Africa supplies less than 2% of these commodities to the US. Yet the US saw fit to exempt nearly 60% of steel exports from the US’s European and other allies. Fears that Trump may try to abrogate other South Africa preferences that allow imports of manufactured products, notably BMW Series 3 and Mercedes C Class automobiles, with a lot more jobs at stake, are understandable. South Africa should lobby a receptive US Congress to prevent this. Bi-partisan majorities recently renewed duty-free access until 2025, after protracted and successful negotiations with South Africa. South Africa can also draw on Congressional goodwill that so far has resisted Trump’s attempts to cut development assistance to Africa, including SA. And finally, the business community has responded positively to Ramaphosa’s emissaries seeking support for his global campaign to raise USD$100 billion of investments for the country. Standing up to a bully There are many entrenched networks of cooperation between South Africa and the US among sister cities, provinces and states, civic organisations, educational and scientific exchanges, and various cultural and historical ties. They can all help to shield South Africa from Trump’s bullying. Other countries, uncertain about how to respond to Trump, may not have the same means that South Africa has to connect directly and extensively with the American people. But, if Pretoria is willing to stand up to Trump, it might encourage African and other smaller countries to

Blog, Essays

Trump’s inappropriate anger has become essential to his political success by Prof. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen

The emotional politics of US President Donald Trump have never been more intriguing. Close to two years after he was announced as the official Republican nominee, headlines are still dominated by his latest impulsive political decisions, unhinged typo-filled Twitter rants, and blustering denunciations of foes and former allies alike. Trump’s rise has signaled a change in the emotional tone of public debate. The people of the US are angry – mostly either at or with their President. Anger is an empowering emotion which can mobilise the public to come together to vocalise their grievances. But at the same time, it is anathema to constructive political decision-making because of its close association with violence and aggression. Philosophers have long viewed the “civilised life as one that avoids anger” – so why, then, do we hear so much about the anger of Trump, his supporters, and opponents? The importance of anger to Trump’s appeal stands in stark contrast to the hope and other positive emotions which both his predecessor President Obama, and Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton relied heavily on during their campaigns. Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again is a slogan that embodies hope for the future and the possibility of change, but it has consistently been accompanied by angry rants about the present, resonating powerfully with disaffected voters. Emotional politics My own analysis has identified that anger is an important factor in making sense of Trump. Looking at mentions of “anger” in US newspaper coverage of Trump during the post-election and inauguration period, the overall tone contrasts with the same period after Obama’s first presidential election victory in 2008. In the period following the 2016 presidential election and up until the day after Trump’s inauguration, 3,828 stories used the words “anger” or “angry”, compared with 1,449 for Obama. A closer examination of a smaller sample of inauguration coverage shows much the same pattern. For inauguration day and the day after, there were almost twice as many stories using the words “anger” and “angry” for Trump (90) than for Obama (47). And while in Obama’s case, much of the anger expressed had nothing to do with the new president, in Trump’s case, more than half of all references to anger (53.3%) targeted Trump. This goes against what inaugurations usually represent: the nation coming together, and divisions and negative emotions being set aside. What is particularly interesting is how often Trump himself was described as being angry: his anger appeared in 23% of all inauguration stories that mentioned anger. By contrast, there were no references to Obama being angry in the coverage of his first inauguration. Anger without a cause Historically, emotion management has been vital to successful presidential candidacies, while poor control has derailed campaigns. The Democratic primary candidacy of Howard Dean in 2004 collapsed after the infamous “Dean scream”. At the end of his spontaneous speech reacting to his third-place result in the Iowa Caucus, Dean made a high-pitched scream, which he later attributed to a sore throat. Dean was denounced as unpresidential and uncontrolled. He described it himself as a “crazy, red-faced rant”. His display of odd nonverbal language served as a marker of uncontrollable emotionality, and effectively put an end to his race. By contrast, Trump’s outbursts and gaffes have been too numerous to count. The blatant disregard for “feeling rules” – which govern one’s own displays of emotion in particular situations – might have terminated any other candidate at any other time. But Trump has sailed onward, constantly emoting in socially inappropriate ways. My study also showed that a high number of references to anger – a total of 20% – in the inauguration coverage did not identify a target, and that in the majority of these cases, it was Trump himself who was described as inherently angry. Trump was not only frequently represented as being angry, but he was angry about nothing in particular. This was also true of some of the coverage of his supporters. Anger normally requires a target for it to matter politically. But the angry Trump is newsworthy in his own right. As Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne said in a widely syndicated column: Donald John Trump intends to govern as the same fiercely angry man who inspired the discontented but aroused the worries and fears of so many other Americans. Naming the target of anger both explains and legitimises it. But Trump and his supporters’ generalised anger suggests that they are angry without a cause. The image that emerges from the media coverage is that anger is essential to their identity and their world view. Trump has become an emotional performer, acting as the advocate of the people and the impersonator of their anger. His anger matters as a political force. The way that Trump has been portrayed in the US print media has made anger a vital lens for interpreting his politics and performance. What we now need to understand is what forms of action – including policy decisions – this anger enables, and how it is actively resisted and challenged.   Professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen is the Director of Research Development and Environment, School of Journalism, Cardiff University. Source: Originally published by the conversation.com

Blog

Irish PM reminds Trump that immigrants built America.

“We believed in the shelter of America, and the compassion of America, and the opportunity of America. We came, and we became Americans.” ~ Enda Kenny Talk about Irish mojo and the Taoiseach Enda Kenny comes to mind. The Irish Prime Minister who was a guest at the White House in line with a long held tradition on St. Patricks day seized the opportunity to give a rousing speech in which he reminded everyone including US President Donal Trump about the beauty of immigration. In the speech which has since gone viral with close to 35m views as at press time, Mr Kenny said that St Patrick whose day was being celebrated around the world was an immigrant and was, in many ways, the patron saint of immigrants along with being the patron saint of Ireland. He said, “Ireland came to America because we were deprived of liberty, deprived of opportunity, of safety, of even food itself, the Irish believed, and four decades before Lady Liberty lifted her lamp – we were the wretched refuse on the teeming shore”. “We believed in the shelter of America, in the compassion of America, in the opportunity of America. “We came, and we became Americans. We lived the words of John F. Kennedy long before he uttered them. We asked not what America could do for us, but what we could do for America – and we still do.” he added. It was indeed a short but powerful speech. Coming a day after Trump’s new immigration ban was halted by a federal court many opinion leaders applauded the message. Some sections of the US and UK media have gone further to extrapolate that it was an indirect criticism of the American President’s controversial immigration policies. Occupy Democrats posted the video on their Facebook page captioned “Irish PM SCHOOLS Trump: ‘St. Patrick Was An Immigrant’ Right to Trump’s face!” Opinions will vary on this one but I can tell you it felt proud to be Irish watching the Taoiseach courageously saying what the British PM who rushed to visit the White House first couldn’t say. You can watch a video of the full speech here.  

Blog, Essays, Reverie

Trump’s Muslim ban is US tradition..only with a ‘Trumpet’ this time.

FACT: Just in case you’ve forgotten, Obama once banned immigrants from Venezuela. He also banned Iraqi refugees for 6 months and deported 2.5m people, more than any US president. Despite my views on Trump’s stupid Muslim ban, examining his policies with regard to the American context will tell you the man is no fool. When I read this article last year I realised how smart the really is. He only made a promise informed by the prevailing fact that more Americans want Muslims banned from their country. You see over the years it has been impressed upon Americans that they are at war with Islam since Bush declared his so-called war on terror. The media has not relented in painting a picture of ‘we against them’. This was unpacked in “Manufacturing consent” a book by Herman and Chomsky which proposed that the US mass media “are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalised assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion”. Make no mistake about it the SILENT majority love this policy but may not be willing to say so to appear politically correct, well with Trump political correctness is dead! Much as I see it as a stupid policy I cannot deny that he is fulfilling his promise to the electorate. That is why I ‘ve always maintained that a majority of Americans are ignorant. A point that often infuriates many of my good friends over there but very true nevertheless. Back home you cannot help but laugh at some ignorant Nigerians who applaud the ban while hoping that Trump their new hero will deal with Buhari and the Muslims they loathe. Hear me now, the white majority whose ancestors occupied America and almost wiped out the natives no longer want ‘foreigners’ in ‘their’ land. They are now scared that in years to come they will become the minority, so they don’t want Muslims who disguise as refugees only to come and bomb them in subways and other public places neither do they want ‘lazy’ Africans who troop in to register for social welfare only to lay back on the couch and gobble down free pizzas provided by hard working tax payers nor Mexicans who keep chicken in the backyard to wake them up in the wee hours. So Trump’s ban is in line with an age-long tradition only that his style of delivery is always greeted with so much media hysteria. The ban is in place all the same so the rest of the world will have to watch and see how it plays out while the grammar speaking minority of Americans who oppose it will have to live with it for the next 90 days. Ironically, the usual response of ignoble white supremacists when confronted with their shallow reasoning is “go back to your country”. And you can help but wonder where they ‘ll go if the real owners of the land should ask them to go back to their own country.

Blog, Essays

On Trump’s Muslim ban by Nze Anizor

I neither believe nor accept that religion is the problem of Nigeria or the world. Religion is just a crutch which people, tribes or countries fighting for land, economic or political supremacy use to justify their blood lust. Ban religion and they will locate another crutch quickly. So Islam is violent? Are there no Muslims in South Western Nigeria? Most of the skirmishes between ‘alayes‘ and Hausas or Igbos in Lagos are purely tribal and have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. How come most of the religious violence in Nigeria is located in the Northern part of the country. Are there no Muslims in Gambia, Senegal, etc? Are there no Muslims in the UAE, Iran, etc? In reality, Nigeria is one of the very few places on earth which has a strong central government but still has a problem with violence tied to religion. Islamic violence in Libya, Syria, and Iraq became issues with the breakdown of their central govt. The implication, therefore, is that we really do not have as strong a central govt as we like to pretend. Coming to Trump’s ban, for me it is neither here nor there, especially seeing as it is temporary. Affected countries are free to retaliate if they feel injured enough. I have no doubt the ban won’t last but the inherent message will reverberate for long. A possible advantage is that people who intend to set their country on fire and flee to the USA may have a rethink. Build your country and you won’t care if another man bans you from entering his own country. Build your country and you can thump your nose at Trump and his ban and walls. I won’t mind if he bans Nigerian government officials from entering the USA . Maybe then they will pay the desired attention to responsible governance. I stand with Lolly Daskal. Nze tweets @okenze

Join our essay competition.

This will close in 13 seconds

Solverwp- WordPress Theme and Plugin

Scroll to Top