President Donald Trump swung into action this weekend with his temporary ban on refugees entering the United States, fulfilling a campaign promise to prevent terrorism in the nation, by barring refugees and nationals of seven Muslim-majority nations. His executive order provoked anger and confusion on the parts of those affected and their relatives; particularly for those who waited for them at U.S. airports. At least 50 people were held for questioning at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.
While many are questioning the legality of the president's actions, other especially civil rights groups demonstrated en masse across the country at airports as far flung as New York and Los Angeles. The reaction from many in Europe was dismay, and even horror.
For the newly elected president, this was his moment, one where he not only kept his promise from the campaign trail, but also one where stagecraft upended statecraft, and in while the action might later might be revised, it was, politically speaking, a brilliant opening move; one that defined both his will, and his desire to support his base of supporters.
Adding to the calculated action, and nearly on cue was the temporary stay by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly who “ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of two Iraqi men who were detained,” at JFK International. Even that act alone is bound to elicit a response that activist judges are preventing from keeping the country safe, thus playing directly into the hands of his supporters, who felt that liberals, like former president Obama, could not keep the country secure in the face of increasing terrorism..
If this all seems Machiavellian, then it is meant to be as the team at the White House plans, plots and counterplots moves that are not only calculated, but strike at the fears of many in the country, be they liberal or conservative.
 |
| Steve Bannon |
The memories of the Paris terrorist attacks are still fresh for many, and questions about whether they could could happen in the U.S. for many are a major concern. Going even further back to the 2005 London bombing attacks, they showed many that perhaps equally dangerous is the threat from within, with homegrown terrorists, was just as great as that from ISIS.
Despite the inconsistency of some countries that were omitted from the list - Saudi Arabia (which was the home of the 9/11 terrorists), the move, which could easily be a trial balloon for even stronger actions in the future, this opening salvo is just the beginning of more from the man who upset the political applecart by defeating a 30 year political veteran, Hillary Clinton this past fall.
Trump’s “get tough” stance is one that he has consistently portrayed, and in case, no one believed him, the proof was played out this weekend across the country, as he and his advisers stood tall on the parapet watching the confusion below. Indeed the Chicago Tribune reported Monday that Steve Bannon, “the former head of the far-right website Breitbart News, once said his goal was to ‘bring down everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.’” It looks as if he and Trump, through his moves, might just “upend government policy on various issues,” as he begins his administration..
As a businessman he knows that it’s important when making changes by labelling them “temporary” it is a none-too subtle move to make them permanent, in one form or another. Aided by Stephen Miller, another aide, his strict interpretation of immigration laws and its implementation by Homeland Security, which while rushed through, flexes muscle.
Underlying this order is the anti-Muslim sentiment that he has played on not only during the campaign, but even before with his accusations that Obama was not born in the U.S. with the implication that he was a “secret Muslim.” It is also one that some of the public, even now, stick to with statements such as “You know what Obama’s middle name is, don’t you?” It is Hussein, and a confirmation for many that he is a Muslim, not a Christian, and not to be trusted.
Recall the cover of the now infamous New Yorker magazine, where Obama was caricatured in Muslim garb, and the die is cast. Now fast forward to the acceptance of Christian Syrians, but not others, and the divisions, and fears, that he so skilfully plays come into even sharper focus.
In an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network he said: "They've been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
As we have seen, the president plays loose and free with the facts, and this assertion is is not true. The fact checkers at NPR state that In fact, the number of Christian refugees to the U.S. in 2016 was almost equal to that of Muslim refugees — 37,521 to 38,901, according to the Pew Research Center, which is basing its numbers on figures from the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell said on ABC “I don't want to criticize them for improving vetting. I think we need to be careful; we don't have religious tests in this country.”
Noting that key advisers for Trump, like Bannon, “are all people who have expressed anti-Muslim sentiment. . . .[are on] on an institutional level, very frightening,” remarked Hoda Katebi, communications coordinator for the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, in an interview with the Chicago Reader.
While the White House has praised Bannon for his “tremendous understanding of the world and the geopolitical landscape that we have now,” in one sense the order might not make the nation any safer. This is especially seen with the absence of the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, unless needed. It all proves to be the portent of things to come, where perception is nine tenths of the law.
There are also a number of supporting factors that will allow Trump in these first 100 days to get mostly what he wants, and what his base wants of him, and they are: party loyalty from fellow Republicans who have 8 years of pent up frustration, that they want to move on; a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, and the theme of the campaign that America needs a strong leader again --- not the perceived liberal milquetoasts of the past. If all this seems familiar to students of world history, then so be it, it is intentional.
To get to the traditional 100 day agenda, for issues like the repeal of Obamacare will require, as Dick SImpson, associate professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago noted, “would require some moderate Republicans to join with the Democrats,” but he also has said that while, “There will be broad resistance to to those Trump policies but by executive orders and the momentum of the first hundred.days of his presidency in Congress, he will get his way in changing the country’s direction in the beginning.”
One possible fly in the ointment may be Trump’s lack of political experience, and even his lack of interest in policy details, in contrast to many of his cabinet appointees who do have them, plus the experience and knowledge of how Washington works. And, in another twist, the new normal of this administration, also shows in a recent Pew Research poll, that 4 in 10 Americans, during the transition to the Oval Office, approved of Trump’s explanation in explaining his policies.
The same has held for those Cabinet nominees, “only 4 in 10 American, another low for a president-elect during the transition,” noted the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau in their report last month. This could lead to dissension in the ranks for those looking for “clear guidance, they may interpret their selection as a mandate to pursue their own agendas. That could lead to conflict if those policies prove unpopular or at odds with Trump’s desires,” they also remarked.
Monday proved to show some of this internal angst when the Republican establishment found themselves at odds after a dizzying “week of President Donald Trump bulldozing through the norms of policy and protocol - dashing off executive orders without warning,” .with the policy towards Mexico and the border wall and the travel ban.
They have been either not consulted, or under consulted on matters of policy and polity, and felt as the Tribune reported, “failing to fully engage on drafting tough legislative packages. Like tax reform and health care, and bypassing Congress.” Indeed some have found the new refugee and visa policy to be “too much, signaling the first major rift in their already fraught partnership.”
Forging his own path, Trump risks alienating the GOP establishment as they struggle to maintain parity with their roles. And, even party stalwarts such as Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona have said, “it’s unacceptable,” of Trump’s recent actions, and Congress was even forced to acquiesce to his plans to support his assertion that Mexico would pay for the border wall.
Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who the president has said is “writing his heart out,” may be wondering in what direction can the president and his closest advisors be reigned in to avoid the fallout from the travel ban. Even before the election, Ryan wondered aloud, said many, if his agenda of free trade and low taxes, “combined with a focus on slowing the growth of the country’s debt by remaking entitlement programs like Medicare and repealing the Affordable Care Act, could be actionable, reported The Wall Street Journal..
In the new normal that, is now Washington, that may be an even larger problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment