Connect with us

‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’: President Trump Is a Return to Reagan-Era Politics and Public Policy

Published

on

Trump Will Be as Detached and Disaffected as Reagan, Leaving Policy to His Anti-LGBT, Anti-Women, Anti-Immigrant White Nationalist Team

The election of New York City businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States last week has sent shock waves crashing through the American body politic, as well as globally in the governments of both U.S. allies and opponents. 

While pundits, political experts, commentators and lay persons assess and discuss the implications of Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, many communities within American society – including women, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and LGBT people – are in deep grief and despair. These often-minority communities share a state of fear brought about by Trump’s own words in speeches and social media posts during the course of his campaign that appeared to paint targets on them. In fact, his election has seen massive protests in numerous cities across the United States.

There are very concrete concerns that the incoming Trump Administration will declare war on these communities, principally by undoing the last eight years of work by the outgoing Obama administration as telegraphed in statements made by campaign officials and even the President-elect himself.

But one factor needs to be stated clearly given this current atmosphere regarding the President-elect: “The Emperor has no clothes.” Following this line of thought, one may reasonably draw the conclusion that there are direct parallels to the election and later the administration of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980.

Perhaps the main difference between the two men is the fact that while Reagan had served as Governor of California, and had a basic understanding of the machinations of government and its functions as an institution, Trump on the other hand has virtually no experience in governmental affairs or operations. Both men however share the singularly unique trait of detached engagement, preferring to “staff it out,” letting key issues be decided by their underlings and signing off on work product that they have oft times have not been active participants in. During campaigning, they both laid out a broad agenda, heavy on rhetoric, but with little real substance in terms of the direct actions they would take instead leaving those to others – read: staffers & appointees. 

As to almost highlight Trump and his team’s ignorance of governmental operations, The Wall Street Journal noted in a piece Monday that President Barack Obama indicated he will most likely spend more time with the President-elect than has been previously the norm, owing to the latter’s lack of knowledge as to the reality of presidential duties. 

“During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting,” the WSJ reported. “Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.”

“After meeting with Mr. Trump, the only person to be elected president without having held a government or military position, Mr. Obama realized the Republican needs more guidance. He plans to spend more time with his successor than presidents typically do, people familiar with the matter said.”

The Reagan White House chiefly operated on the principal of delegated or designated authority with minimal presidential influence, interference, or direction, primarily filtered through his two Chiefs of Staff, Jim Baker who was succeeded by Donald Regan. Analysis of the Reagan presidency by political experts and historians over the past 28 years reveals that the Reagan Inner Circle, comprised of close aides, staffers, and what has been termed by historians, his “Kitchen Cabinet,” in many instances were instrumental in establishing the parameters for public policy that President Reagan himself simply signed off on. This was particularly true of domestic policies.

Now, thirty-six years later, Trump has already placed himself in a nearly identical “Reaganesque” scenario, surrounding himself with longtime Republican operatives and Washington insiders – contrary to his oft repeated campaign promises to “Drain the Swamp” of corrupt Washington lobbyist malaise and special interest influences, as his campaign transitions into an incoming presidential administration. Comparatively, as was the case with Reagan before him, Trump initially appears to be more of a figurehead chief executive as opposed to hands on and fully engaged president.

For the critical White House position of Chief of Staff, Trump has selected long time consummate Washington insider, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. This selection of Priebus, recommended by GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan, is seen as widely acceptable to large segments of the Republican Party and its base. Priebus will act as the primary conduit between the White House and the Republican-led Congress, as well as the liaison between Trump and his presidential Cabinet and the independent Federal Agency heads. 

While Trump’s selection of Priebus seems to telegraph a certain acceptance of Washington conventions, his next decision, naming Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, as “chief strategist and senior counselor” to the president, has set off alarms in both the liberal and some of the moderate conservative camps. Bannon’s new position not only makes him one of Trump’s closest advisers with unfettered access to the Oval Office, but indeed one may argue makes him one of the most powerful people in America. 

In a statement released Monday by his office, Oregon Democratic U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley took serious exception regarding Steve Bannon serving in the Trump White House: 

“There should be no sugarcoating the truth here: Donald Trump just invited a white nationalist into the highest reaches of the government. Bannon has boasted that he made Breitbart News ‘the platform for the alt-right,’ which is the politically correct term for the resurrection of white nationalism.

“Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart News created news sections such as ‘Black Crime’ and compared the work of Planned Parenthood to the Holocaust. Under his leadership, Breitbart News ran this headline following the massacre of nine church-goers at an African American church in Charleston: ‘Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage.’ He called conservative commentator Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’ Steve Bannon bears substantial responsibility for the open and disgusting acts of hatred that are sweeping across our nation. 

“After running a campaign built on inciting divisions and hate, Donald Trump has claimed he wants to unite America. Yet he has done nothing meaningful to stop the wave of hate crimes and hate speech he has unleashed, and now has brought that strategy right into the Oval Office. 

“Donald Trump needs to forcefully denounce the hateful actions and efforts to intimidate people that some of his supporters are undertaking and rescind the appointment of Steve Bannon.” 

Judd Legum, the Editor-In-Chief of ThinkProgress, the online publication of Washington D.C. based progressive policy think-tank Center for American Progress, noted that Breitbart “regularly traffics in racially charged accusations about President Obama, provocative comparisons between abortion providers and Holocaust killers, and contempt for feminism.” 

More damning was an observation from former Breitbart Editor-In-Chief Ben Shapiro, who described Bannon as “a vindictive, nasty figure, infamous for verbally abusing supposed friends and threatening enemies.”

Jody May-Chang, a progressive journalist and LGBTQI equality rights activist based in Idaho called out the President-elect’s choice, saying:

“’Alt-Right’ is a Politically Correct term they call themselves who are also known for being what we all call White Supremacists, Nazi’s and the Ku Kluz Klan! The people who voted for Trump say they were rejecting political correctness. Well then we should too, in this case particularly.”

Yet the most powerful Republican in the capital, House Speaker Ryan said Sunday evening he had “no concerns” about Bannon taking a prominent role in the White House. 

Trump has already angered social conservatives, Christian family groups, and LGBTQI equality rights opponents and also, according to one source inside his transition team, members of his inner circle with his statement Sunday night given to CBS News’ “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl on the subject of same-sex marriage. The President-elect told her regarding the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year, “it’s the law of the land.”

“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” he said. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done … these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And – I think – I’m – I’m fine with that.” 

As the protests continue and minority groups debate the full impact of a Trump presidency that includes a divisive figure like Bannon, for the LGBTQI community, the incoming  administration could mean rolling back all of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, which gave measures of protection for the transgender community, required health care providers and hospitals to allow unfettered access to partners and spouses in same-sex relationships, and gave spouses of LGBTQI U.S. military personnel equal treatment with the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Also possibly targeted would be the Veteran’s Administration policies in regards to same-sex married couples. Even recent actions by the U.S. Defense Department, in regard to allowing transgender personnel to serve, could come under intense scrutiny and siege.

Major advances for the LGBTQI community would take congressional action to undo and most experts agree are highly unlikely- although not outside the realm of the possibility of the anti-LGBTQI  groups attempting to push the incoming Congress into taking action. The Vice-President-elect, former Indiana Republican Governor Michael Pence, is an outspoken opponent of LGBTQI rights and is seen by some progressive leaders to be the person most likely in the new administration to lead a campaign to undo eight years of progress made by the Obama Administration in support of the LGBTQI community.

One LGBTQI rights activist noted” “If there is any one person who poses the biggest threat to our way of life it is Mike Pence, who wants to erode the separation between church and state, tell women what to do with their bodies, use electroshock on teens to rid them of their gayness, and discourage the use of condoms.”

The other Trump appointment that has riled up LGBTQI people and their allies was the Presidential Transition-Team appointment of former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, currently a visiting Fellow at the Washington D.C. based anti-LGBTQI rights group, Family Research Center. That group has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an active hate group for its blatant disregard for the truth about the LGBTQI community and its penchant for spreading misinformation about LGBTQI persons.

Blackwell, who was appointed Chief Domestic Policy adviser to Trump, said in a 2006 interview with the Columbus Dispatch;

“I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed. The reality is, again … that I think we make choices all the time. And I think you make good choices and bad choices in terms of lifestyle. Our expectation is that one’s genetic makeup might make one more inclined to be an arsonist or might make one more inclined to be a kleptomaniac. Do I think that they can be changed? Yes.” 

Since the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell took an Act of Congress, and a reinstatement would require passage of a new law, which almost certainly would be challenged by the LGBTQI community and its allies, but, even the Pentagon itself, thus there is small probability of the anti-LGBTQI forces, including the incoming Vice-President. However, actions taken by Defence Secretary Ash Carter this past June to allow transgender service in the U.S. Military most likely would be reversed.  

The next “safe” advancement for the LGBTQI community was the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act, passed by Congressional action and signed into law by President Obama. There is little probability that the forces arrayed against the LGBTQI community would attempt repeal, given that the law also covers other minorities.

That said, however, Trump has publicly indicated he would sign the so-called First Amendment Defence Act (FADA), a measure that effectively would allow legalised discrimination against the LGBTQI  community based on religious beliefs. As Governor of Indiana, Pence backed and signed a similar measure and had the backing of virtually every anti-LGBTQI group.

The third issue that has raised the most concern undoubtedly is the ruling in June of 2015 that granted same-sex couples the right to be married. Trump’s statements Sunday have now raised some questions in Washington’s conservative circles as to whether or not he’d support all out efforts to overturn the High Court decision. Legal observers however have pointed out that there are significant obstacles for the right to nullify that ruling.

Backers of a Constitutional Amendment readily agree that it would take years and there is not an iron clad certainty that the necessary 2/3 majority of States to ratify such an amendment would be a reality. The second path, bringing forward another case would be faced with several obstacles, commencing with the current court. Should Trump appoint a social conservative in the same vein as Justice Scalia, it merely would regain the make-up and balance of the SCOTUS as it was at the time of the ruling.

Then too, as current Justices Ginsburg, 83, and Breyer, 79, may leave office and President Trump is able to shift the balance on the court to the right, there are still the logistics of a case making its way up through the lower federal courts. Legal observers say that besides also taking years, given the exhaustive back and forth, the lower courts could likely dismiss challenges, preventing another review by the High Court. 

In short, Obergefell could be overturned, but not immediately.

Other communities are facing adverse actions such as the President-elect’s public statements that he will seek to enforce the mass deportation or incarceration of what he has labeled criminal illegal (undocumented) aliens. House Speaker Ryan was quick to point out that the United States government is not prepared to create a massive federal force to sustain Trump’s deportation agenda although experts are now questioning by which means Trump actually hopes to achieve that goal. On the subject of his campaign promise to build a wall? He now acknowledges that any wall would likely comprise large segments of fencing. 

Overall the focus now by politicos and the media is on his ability to form and run a government, which given his inexperience is looking as though he, like Reagan, will be relying on staff and his appointees who will really run the show. Therein lies the greatest challenge.

 

Brody Levesque is the Chief Political Correspondent for The New Civil Rights Movement.
You may contact Brody at Brody.Levesque@thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

 

 Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Published

on

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.