Trump and the Media: A Major Learning Curve

President Trump's displeasure with the mainstream media (MSM) seems based whether he finds the coverage flattering rather than what most people would call accurate. He does not like negative press--make that really doesn't like it. Most people don't, but those in powerful positions usually don't go around deploying an arsenal of ballistic missiles through a twitter account and accusing the media of purveying "fake news."

Now I will admit that there is such a thing as fake news. A walk through the supermarket reveals it readily. "Queen resigns in favor of William and Kate" screams a headline despite British constitutional law that would make this absolutely impossible. In this case, the writers depend on their readers' lingering fondness for Princess Diana and their wish to see team Charles and Camilla punished.

In the past, I used to cite the National Enquirer as an example of this, but there are worse. Anyone credulous enough to buy and read this stuff soon finds that the stories are never credited to anyone with a name and often have nothing to do with the headlines.  These papers have no accountability, no professional code of ethics, and no responsibility for anything beyond what they call "entertainment." Believe at your peril.

No one denies that there can be a point of view in any reporting. It might show up in the details of what is included in the story or even in the choice of what is reported at all. But generally a MSM reporter will try to be balanced and the editor will keep the opinions restricted to the editorial page or run under a byline. Most important, when challenged, the MSM will make corrections if warranted or will explain the decisions.

But the idea of fake news is not the main issue. Calling MSM fake because it is not flattering is a complete misunderstanding of the difference between propaganda and reporting.

Propaganda exists to present events in the best possible light for whoever pays for it. It is meant to promote particular programs and persuade people. It is often associated with repressive regimes who wish to silence the press. Any number of these exist in the world.

Reporting, on the other hand, is the job of the MSM and it is meant to be critical. The founding documents of this country call on a free press to analyze, criticize, expose, and ensure that leaders are honest. Its purpose is also to keep citizens informed. According to Thomas Jefferson, "the only security of all is in a free press." That is why we tolerate nonsense journalism that fabricates the lives of movie stars--the principle of a free press is too vital to lose.

President Trump's unhelpful feud with the MSM suggests that he does not understand this. No, they are not his "friends" because they are not meant to be. No one really expected that a CEO with no government experience was going to walk into a complex bureaucracy serving over 300 million people and not have a massive learning curve, particularly not when he has surrounded himself with others of similarly limited experience. The press is going to document all the stumbles because that is its job. The MSM is not the same as a flashy corporate brochure extolling the CEO.

President Trump has a long road ahead. Among the things he, and many of his supporters, must learn is that black and white simple answers offered from the comfort of arm chairs do not work as envisioned in the real world. Every idea and every program has supporters that will not go gentle into that good night. There will need to be negotiation and leadership sometimes exercised most effectively when it is not visible. This is subtlety and maturity.

And when and if this understanding does come about, you can absolutely sure that the MSM will have had a lot to do with it.

Trump's Big Mistake: Green Card Holders Have Rights

The world seldom responds well to unilateral, unthought-out actions, Gordian knot notwithstanding.  It should be no surprise, therefore, that the response to the White House ban on entry into the US from seven Near Eastern countries has raised a lot of challenge on several fronts.

Probably  the most obvious violation it represents is the sudden revocation of entry for green-card holders. For anyone not familiar with the green cards, these are a form of identification for permanent, lawful residents of the US.

Since I held a green card myself before I took citizenship, I can assure you that they are not dispensed out of coke machines where put in your money and out pops a card. I was married to an American citizen, mother of another, and born in England yet I was subjected to intrusive background checks and it was made to clear to me that I would not be granted a card unless I had no criminal background, would not be a public burden, and had no political subversion in my history. Phone calls were made to my references, court records were consulted, finances checked up on, and this was in the 1960s. It has only grown tighter since then.

In return for all this vetting, my green card came in the mail about six months after application. Along with the card came a series of rights and obligations. In return for obeying US laws, one of my rights was the full protection of all federal, state, and local laws. If anyone doubts this, go to the home page of the US Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The rights and responsibilities are spelled out right at the top of the page. Green card holders have the same rights and protection as citizens except they don't vote, run for office, work for the government, or receive government services unless authorized by congress.

Therefore, what the White House did was strip away the right to guaranteed due process, including entry and exit into the country, and protection of law for a whole class of green card holders. This has to have struck fear into the hearts of card holders of any nationality. It would have into mine. This has to be why the courts are restraining the executive order. On its face, the order is just plain illegal.

The other issue is the revocation of visas. There is no legal protection for those, as far as I can see. They were always subject to revocation at the will of the country. But even these are not dispensed out of coke machines. As subsequent investigation has shown, these tend to be issued to people with family in the US, legitimate educational and professional reasons to be here, and humanitarian actions such as protecting people who collaborated with the US. If the White House wants to revoke these, it can, but it will find itself dealing with the horrendous cases such as the baby that needs heart surgery. If the White House administration can live with this fallout, they are probably within their rights.

Bu then there is the matter of the particular nations included in the ban. There are many ways to look at the statistics, but since the administration is being xenophobic, I will be too. How many American lives have been lost in this country as the result of immigration from these seven countries? The answer is none. The largest loss of life in the US recently was  caused by citizens of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Why aren't they on the banned list if security is the motive?  Could it be yet another conflict of interest for the president since he does business with them?

I leave this to more legal heads but want to recall that the other horrendous loss of life to domestic terrorism was in Oklahoma, at the hands of Timothy McVeigh. I was in Oklahoma City around that time, so had the personal horror of actually seeing what white terrorists are capable of inflicting on their own country. Its not just external terrorism we have to fear.

Despite being a US citizen, I still get agitated coming through customs and immigration at the airport. Obviously, I have not shaken the unease of the immigrant knowing that I am in the hands of a bureaucracy much more powerful than I. I can only imagine what those people stuck in the airports must have felt.

Trump Against the World: Maybe this Mayhem is Needed?

When I was in college, I was required to read Crane Brinton's Anatomy of Revolution (1938) for Poli Sci 101. It was one of the college texts that I can honestly say I devoured. I find myself remembering it these days because I think it has much to say about us today. Others must find something in it as well because it is still in print.

Basically, Brinton analyzed four revolutions: the English (civil war), French, American, and Russian,
looking for common patterns and outcomes.

While it reminds me a little of Hari Seldon in the Isaac Asimov Foundation series (Seldon used mathematics and what he called psychohistory to predict the future), I still find Brinton's work interesting. My own conclusion,  based on his definitions and predictions, is that the US has been for some time about to undergo an inevitable revaluation of its founding principles, if not a second revolution.

Revolutions commence, he writes, when there is some form of financial and social discontent---deficits, taxation, economic inequality, personal resentments, lack of opportunity--that leads to armed resistance. Demands are made, the government attempts to suppress the movement, but ultimately the rebels win.

Once in power, the second stage begins. It becomes clear that the successful rebels are not unified although the movement was swept into power by feelings of hope that things can change and be better. Separate factions within the revolutionaries begin to compete, and those in leadership positions are besieged by conservatives on one side and extremists on the other. The extremists generally prevail and institute a reign of dictatorship and suppression of dissent if not of terror.

The third stage is a convalescence in a way while people recover from the shocks of the previous period. But this relative quiet is marked by the emergence of an unconstitutional tyrant and an attempt to return to some of the prerevolutionary values.

The US was very fortunate in not having the reign of terror as happened in France but I don't think that exempts us as much as shapes a unique American response to vast changes in our lives. Their industrial revolution has become our technological revolution, and perhaps those are the two revolutions with the most impact.

So, today we find ourselves potentially facing some of these same realities. It's fascinating to see how they might work out.

We certainly have the preconditions for revolution: economic disparity between the 1% and the rest of us; complaints about taxation (whether relatively real or not); lack of educational opportunity given the high costs; perceived lack of economic opportunity in the failure to plan for changing workforce requirements; and the tendency to scapegoat in assigning blame. These factors were ripe for exploitation, as indeed they have been in the current political process. It would seem that right now the revolutionaries have won.

But then comes the second stage. History suggests that there will be a falling out among the different groups. The evangelical Christians will not find their agenda fulfilled; populist support will fade if extravagant promises inevitably cannot be kept; the wealthy will use their financial resources to try to maintain the advantages of their wealth; and the people will generally become a-political just trying to survive. The leader will find himself besieged by competing demands and will yield moral ground to the extremists who are motivated by the zeal of their beliefs. There is a potential for conflict and perhaps even civil war. One hopes not.

Still with me?

The only thing hopeful about all this is that Brinton says it will be followed by a period of quiet and rebuilding. I think it will be something like party-goers carrying their shell-shocked selves back to their homes in the morning. It will be then that the US can look again at the founding principles and re-formulate the standards by which this country conducts itself. Perhaps they will not be exactly the same, but certainly I hope that they will emerge from national discussion of who we are and who we want to be, because these are the questions we will be invited to ask ourselves.