If you watched the TV evening news last night (May 17), you saw—right on Embassy Row in downtown DC—what the 15 million Turkish citizens of Kurdish ethnicity have been living through under Erdogan’s campaign of oppression. You also learned why all those who love liberty reject authoritarian leaders.
At the end of a state meeting with President Trump, Erdogan’s gang of…well, you saw the video…gave Trump a slap in the face as well as spitting on American values with a brutal public demonstration of what the Mideast’s newest authoritarian thinks of American liberties. Make no mistake; this was an attack on America and should be treated as such; the fact that it comes only days after Ankara launched an air attack on Syrian Kurdish allies of the U.S. that came very close to killing U.S. soldiers and followed up that attack with a public warning that American troops were in danger of being hit the next time only underscores the seriousness of Erdogan’s little demonstration about his attitude toward democracy…not just in Turkey but here in the U.S. as well.
What I would like to know today is this: has the U.S. ambassador to Turkey been recalled yet?
Investigated me? You’re fired! Or, perhaps not. Perhaps, with Pence, we should all just assume that Trump fired Comey out of his patriotic concern for the welfare of the American people.
Senator Paul said he has seen no evidence…so therefore, he implied, Trump was correct to fire the man who is in charge of gathering it. Whatever the truth of the mess over Trump and Russia, firing Comey right after he requests additional funds to pursue the investigation certainly gives the impression that the White House has something to hide. Unless Trump moves rapidly to appoint an undeniably independent-minded replacement for Comey as FBI chief, what will any outsider be able to conclude except that we are witnessing a cover-up?
Republican Senator McCain compared Trump’s firing of Comey to Nixon’s infamous Watergate cover-up and noted:
This scandal is going to go on. I’ve seen it before. This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop, I can just guarantee it. There’s just too much information that we don’t have that will be coming out. [The Hill.]
White House deputy press secretary Sanders suggested that the world should move on from the Russia investigation, implying that the dismissal of Comey was, after all, intended to interfere with the FBI investigation.
Republican Senator Burr said he was “troubled” by Trump’s action.
Republican Senator Corker noted the importance of having an investigation “free of political interference.”
Republican Senator Flake tweeted that he could not “find an acceptable rationale” for Trump’s action.
We ain’t seen the end of this yet.
Is the White House intentionally humiliating Congressional Republicans? Provoking a government “deconstruction” shutdown (which would not shut down the President’s flurry of executive orders) may be exactly what the White House wants.
Why would a president possibly want to “shut down the government?” If a president ran for office precisely because he or she did not like the government, because he or she wanted to “deconstruct” democracy, then the particular U.S. concept of a “government shutdown” would constitute a brilliant trap for those who support democracy because, at least in the U.S., a “government shutdown” does not shut down the government. It simply shuts down Congress and the bureaucracy, i.e., national parks, protection of food, protection of the environment, and a massive host of other services that the populace treasures. It does not shut down the President.
A so-called government shutdown in fact leaves the President free to go rogue, like a corporate CEO with no board of directors looking over his shoulder.
Even with Congress in session, Trump acts as though its members are little more than his mid-level managers. Trump’s recent remarks and decisions suggest that he is trying to send a message that he does not want a Constitutional separation of powers (i.e., partnership) with Congress but, rather, that he views Congress as a subdivision of his organization.
Unilateral Trump actions ignoring Congress:
his idea of withdrawing from NAFTA
his cruise missile attack on Syria
his use of the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal in Afghanistan
his shifting tactics on health care
his efforts to exploit the threat of a government shutdown to achieve his most controversial goals
his uncoordinated invitation to the extremist and seemingly criminal right-wing Philippine leader Duterte
Trump seems to view himself as CEO of America. Democracies do not have CEOs using their organization for self-enrichment, they have elected representatives serving the public. Congressional Republicans may wish to consider whether or not they believe Congress should be a separate and equal branch of a democratic system (along with the executive branch).
Even for a CEO, this seems odd behavior. If a CEO were to marginalize and ignore both his board of directors as well as all his corporate officers and start making decisions in private with his personal advisers, what would be the reaction of shareholders, corporate officers, board members, other corporations seeking business ties…or the judiciary?
A second-rate dictator can survive by suppressing his own people, but to achieve first-class dictatorial stature, nothing works as well as war.
Erdogan may have pursued authoritarianism by suppressing freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary, but he achieved it by turning on the Kurds–both peaceful Turkish Kurds and militant Syrian Kurds, using the Kurds as scapegoats to justify his drive for personal power. And it worked: it is the oldest con in the book.
Unfortunately for everyone, he is now locked in. It would take political genius indeed for Erdogan suddenly to turn democrat and welcome all his people as full citizens with equal political rights. It is crucial to remember that Erdogan attacked Turkish citizens of Kurdish descent not for defense but after the pro-Kurdish party had just won a breakthrough electoral victory gaining national support and the right to 80 seats in parliament. The issue facing Erdogan at that moment was not “terrorism” but the prospect of a moderate, democratic, pro-Kurdish party peacefully getting enough votes to deny Erdogan his dream of re-writing Turkey’s constitution to replace Turkish democracy with authoritarian rule under himself.
Having used the Kurds as his scapegoat to achieve full power, it is highly doubtful that he will find the will and the way to turn away from racial repression domestically, but–ominously for a Mideast already filled to the brim with chaos–as long as Erdogan holds grimly onto power over a society split right down the middle, the logic of his position will propel him toward a general war against Kurds region-wide. The two Turkish bombing strikes that immediately followed Erdogan’s referendum victory should be interpreted in that context: they are a portent of things to come.
Dictatorship feeds off war because war is the easiest way to con (“in this historic moment of threat, only I can save you”) a population into bending its knee and accepting repression. If the repression was originally justified as protection against a domestic minority, the logic of the situation predicts further racism; if the minority lives on both sides of the border, the logic of the situation predicts regional war.
Dictators need tension, violence, and–even better, from their perspective–war. This sad conclusion has nothing in particular to do with Turks or Muslims; it is simply part of the human condition…at least, until we achieve a higher level of civilization. The people of Turkey are now but the latest victim of a very old political dynamic that Americans are just as vulnerable to as every other society.
Getting insulted in world affairs may be childish, but sometimes, perceptions really do matter.
With President Trump’s congratulatory message for his very narrow and suspicious referendum victory in his pocket, Erdogan has just finished two straight days of bombing the U.S.’s Kurdish allies in Iraq and Syria. Erdogan’s bombs missed U.S. troops by a full six miles. Now, did the American superpower, with its “America First” leader just shy of 100 days in office, just get slapped down or did it just get slapped down…by the now fully in command “Turkey First” leader?
Of course, in international affairs we should all be cautious and thoughtful; it’s not about pride or other such childish emotions. But a couple serious questions do follow from Erdogan’s behavior, which is considerably more bellicose than “North Korea First” Kim’s remarks (mere remarks; no bombs in the neighborhood) about what he might do to a certain U.S. aircraft carrier.
One question concerns the Islamic State, a terror operation that the U.S. has been trying for a couple years to defeat, going all the way back to the battle of Kobani, when Erdogan gave the very strong public appearance of being an ISIS supporter. (And note that, whether or not Erdogan actually does support ISIS, his attack on U.S. allies within sight of hapless U.S. troops (!) does not exactly enhance the U.S. military position on the battlefield.) But more seriously, if Washington allows Ankara to kill soldiers allied with the U.S. while U.S. soldiers are watching from the sidelines, who in the future is likely to put their lives on the line alongside the U.S.?
A second question concerns Putin, another “My Country First” sorta guy. Will Washington’s humiliation by Ankara make Putin take Trump seriously as a negotiating partner whose voice needs to be listened to concerning world affairs?
A third question gets us back to the young Mr. Kim, whom decision-makers on the Potomac sometimes underestimate. I will just take a stab in the dark and make the assumption that someone has brought Erdogan’s shock and awe to Mr. Kim’s attention. Will Mr. Kim now decide to take Washington more seriously?
No further questions…but would someone please tweet me some answers?
Spin up a nice social hurricane by internationalizing a civil war. As the wind rises, chaos ensues, leading to desperation, anger…and extremism, requiring more war, and so the machine cycles around, and the faster it spins, the more money flies off.
After two years of providing the bombs for Riyadh’s air war in Yemen, Washington has now faced up to the predictable–and widely predicted–outcome: a dangerous resurgence of al Qua’ida, which feeds off chaos. So the internationalization of the Yemeni civil war that constitutes the worst mistake of the Obama Administration is now sucking Washington further into yet another Salafi trap.
It is, of course, not that simple, for Salafi extremists–be they al Qua’ida, ISIS, or fundamentalist Saudi officials–will not be the only winners of this latest and rapidly worsening Mideast disaster. Those U.S. politicians who pander to the military-industrial complex for campaign funds or who just curry votes by parading as great military leaders will also no doubt reap their share of short-term payoffs.
Yemenis will, naturally, be the losers, as they long have been, as their nation is destroyed. Americans too will be losers, as their own nation experiences further undermining of democracy in the face of a surging military-financial-industrial complex whose war-profiteering seems immune to interference from mere politicians.
War leads to chaos, which leads to more war, and of course we allow those who build the bombs to make a nice profit. One could imagine a price structure that rewarded arms manufacturers only during peacetime; one could imagine a law prohibiting CEO’s of bomb-making corporations from earning a salary as long as the government is dropping their bombs. One could imagine legal penalties for bombing hospitals, markets, and wedding parties. One could imagine a Constitutional prohibition on executive branch wars unauthorized by Congress. One could imagine financial incentives for companies marketing nation-building hardware rather than nation-destroying hardware. But, were someone to be so rude as to suggest that capitalism might be employed to incentivize peace rather than war, such a troublemaker would immediately be shouted down as “unpatriotic.”
No excuse exists for a unilateral Presidential decision to launch a military attack on another country that is neither posing a direct and imminent security threat to the U.S. nor even posing such a threat to any other identifiable entity. If the White House had time to notify Moscow, it had time to request legal authorization from Congress. War is not the President’s private affair. No member of Congress has any business leaving town this weekend: it is time for Congress to take a stand on the U.S. wars in Syria and Yemen…or is it just a “fake legislature?”
When it comes to the proper, indeed–for liberty, essential relationship of citizens, watchdog groups, academia, and the media with government officials, the rule must be: “Criticism: yes; suppression: no.”
Liberty rests on the right to express opinions. Citizens, politicians, media are free to criticize. Indeed, when it comes to the behavior of politicians, the prime responsibility of the media is to criticize. The first weapon of a dictator is repression of the media, for even before the Strong Arm of the Law can be twisted by a dictator into a weapon against the people, the aspiring dictator must shape public opinion. And that is precisely why suppression of the media by politicians is the worst threat to our freedom, with the suppression of the voicing of political opinions by citizens a close second.
Anyway, is there anything more pathetic than a dictator who threatens citizens for “failing to show respect,” for hurting his feelings?
So, criticism: yes; suppression: no. Any politician who feels he or she has been misrepresented is, under our system of government, more than welcome to explain his or her behavior; indeed, we demand explanation. All are free to express opinions. [Making incorrect factual statements is a distinct issue; this discussion concerns the expression of opinions.] A citizen may criticize any official; a professional media representative is obligated to do so. Investigating malfeasance by officials is the primary duty of the media because trusting officials to be transparent both puts those officials in an intolerable position of moral hazard and effectively compels them to violate the 5th Amendment.
One caveat is important: a distinction needs to be made between freedom of speech of individuals representing themselves simply as citizens and freedom of speech of individuals representing and thus employing the power or prestige of an institution. If it is irresponsible (and punishable in court) for a citizen to yell fire in a crowded theater, it is all the more irresponsible for a policeman to do so. If it is irresponsible and perhaps criminally punishable for a citizen to make racist remarks or tell a lie, it is all the more reprehensible for a government official to do so. Acceptance of a position of power in a democracy confers the duty to behave responsibly. The more powerful an official, the greater the need for media exposure of that official’s behavior. By the same token, the more powerful an official, the more judiciously should an official choose his or her words. The standard of acceptable speech should be far stricter for a powerful official, capable by mere words of provoking hate crimes or inflaming the mob into demanding a war of aggression or frightening an adversary into launching a war, than for the average citizen.
Politicians unwilling to tolerate criticism should find alternative employment. A politician who responds to criticism with threats or insults directed at the individual (rather than explanations for the public) opens himself or herself to the perfectly logical charge that something is being shoved under the carpet. Putin’s arrest of demonstrators voicing their opposition to him and Erdogan’s immediate repression of Kurdish media outlets in reaction to the Kurdish party’s electoral victory may be the two most blatant current examples of this time-worn pattern signaling the rise of a dictator, but every citizen of every country, no matter how “free” or “democratic” or “stable,” must stand constantly on guard against politicians who attack freedom of expression. The one thing no emperor can tolerate is being told he is not wearing any clothes.
The bumbling ineptitude and penchant for cheap political trickery of the GOP health care debacle revealed for those who had not already realized it the spiteful, anti-social, racist contempt of GOP politicians for the American people: punish kids, punish the poor, punish the elderly, punish the very unemployed white male manual workers who elected them in their unseemly rush to condemn what our first black President accomplished. It’s not the uneducated white workers so much as their elected representatives in Congress who are the true deplorables…and now even those who voted for them know it.
Will the lesson stick?
No matter, perhaps. Tax policy is next, and Trump voters will now almost certainly be offered by their elected representatives of the GOP yet another lesson in being served (on a silver platter) by their very own GOP (to the hungry rich). Am I taking any risk whatsoever in predicting that Trump and the GOP will now proceed to offer a bill cutting taxes (for billionaires) while raising taxes for the much scorned bottom 90%?
Note to Democrats: Don’t cheer too loudly; Obamacare, crafted hand-in-hand with Big Pharma, is in truth chock full’o garbage. Time for progressives to step up with a couple clear health care proposals to move things forward.