Skip to main content

Trump the disrupter

Norman Siegel is a civil rights attorney and former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.   He has written an incisive op-ed piece (re-published here in full) on Forward......

"President Donald Trump could have used his inaugural speech to send an uplifting, inclusive message that all Americans can unite as a people despite our very real differences on issues such as racial and class equality, immigration, education, free-speech and the nation’s place in the world.

I had also hoped the President, who arguably had a rhetorical clean slate after being sworn in, would seize this historic moment to embrace the millions of us who voted for another candidate and to reassure us that he hears our concerns and that he will be our president as well.

That did not happen.

Despite a grace note or two, such as “A nation exists to serve its citizens — and the forgotten men and women will be forgotten no longer,” Trump blew an opportunity to unify the nation.

Instead, the theme of his address — “America first” — was alarming. Does that auger a return to the days when some Americans believed in isolationist foreign policy? Clearly, that philosophy will not work in the increasingly inter-connected world of the 21st-century. Do we not have treaty obligations to other nations? Do we not have moral and human rights obligations to people throughout the world? Do we turn our backs on the Syrians who are being slaughtered? Do we walk away from our role as negotiator of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Will we ignore the Rwanda-like genocides to come?

The oath of office requires the President to “faithfully preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That means preserve, protect and defend the First Amendment provision that there shall be no laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Many Americans fear candidate Trump’s bellicose rhetoric belittled the principles embodied in the First Amendment. Remember candidate Trump advocated for criminal punishment or loss of citizenship for those who dared burn the American flag. This, not withstanding the US Supreme Court previous decision that burning the American flag was protected under the First Amendment. Instead of supporting free speech and dissent in his inaugural address, the President talked about “loyalty to our country.” What does that convey to a citizen who disagrees with his policies? Is he or she then seen as disloyal? Disloyal to Trump? Disloyal to America?

Remember candidate Trump advocated making it easier to sue for libel. What does that policy mean for a robust media? Does Trump’s rhetoric and his disfavor of the media will chill or intimidate TV reporters? New York Times’ columnists? And Forward journalists? Wasn’t the inaugural speech the chance to end (or at least suspend) his war on the free press?

Race relations remains a monumental problem in America (The crowd at the inauguration did not appear particularly racially integrated). While Trump uttered one heartening line: “When you open your heart to patriotism – there is no room for prejudice,” his words seem empty, considering he has nominated the least diverse cabinet in recent history.

It would’ve been more uplifting, given America’s racial past and some of the campaign rhetoric, for President Trump to speak about his commitment to racial equality and justice and to pledge to follow the dictates of the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. Disappointingly, that did not happen.

Perhaps there is something for all of us, including President Trump, to ponder when we reflect on Rabbi Hillel’s words: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? And if not now’ when?"


Popular posts from this blog

Donald T: First seduced..... then betrayed!

All those supporters of Trump - who, heaven's only knows, got him headed for the White House - are in a for more than a rude awakening and shock.   Whatever Trump "promised" is just not going to Paul Krugman so clearly spells out in his latest op-ed piece "Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump" in The New York Times.

"Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week — seriously, people, stop focusing on Trum…

Snooping..... at its worst

The Brits have just brought in legislation which allows for unprecedented "snooping" in a Western democracy - says Edward Snowden.   Let truthdig explain....

"On Tuesday, the United Kingdom instated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a piece of legislation described by whistleblower Edward Snowden as “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

The law, informally known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” spent over a year in Parliament before it was passed. The Guardian reported:

"The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been descri…

A "Muslim Register"

Outrageous is the word which immediately comes to mind - the idea of a  Muslim Register which Trump has floated.     And how and by or through whom would this Registry comes into being?    Let The Intercept explain.....

"Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we resist?

This question is perhaps most important for the country’s tech companies, which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump’s transition team. Only Twitter said no.

Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulation…