Washington Post:
President-elect Donald Trump's decision to appoint Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist in the White House has drawn a sharp rebuke from political strategists who see in Bannon a controversial figure too closely associated with the “alt-right” movement, which white nationalists have embraced.In the first place, just because racists do something doesn't make it evil or wrong. One of the virtues of alt-right media is that it is frequently the only media source speaking "truth to power", which is sadly lacking in the MSM today. Journalism should challenge The Powers That Be, not hop into bed with them.
Admittedly, there is some edgy reporting done in the alt-right media. It isn't outright racism, but it does skirt the edges. However, there are times when they are the only source reporting a story, and they aren't false stories either. They are stories that need to be told, but the MSM won't touch them because they are backed by moneyed interests which oppose the ugly truths about themselves. Like the old cliche says, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Continuing:
Bannon, who was the executive chairman of Breitbart News before joining the Trump campaign in August, will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor for Trump; that will give Bannon authority over the strategic direction of the White House. Bannon will assume a similar role to that of Karl Rove during George W. Bush’s administration and recently by longtime strategist John Podesta under President Obama.Rove and Podesta weren't controversial, were they? Any White House chief strategist needs to be someone who will tell the president exactly how things are. Sycophants need not apply.
More:
The announcement has produced intense hand-wringing in Washington and sharp denunciations from political observers and strategists critical of Breitbart News's close association with the alt-right, a fringe conservative movement saturated with racially insensitive rhetoric and elements of outright white nationalism.Elements of white nationalism? Sorry, I missed that part. While I don't visit Breitbart every day, I have yet to see anything "white nationalist" there. What I have seen is news reporting that thumbs its nose at power. THAT is what real journalism should do.
As for "racially insensitive rhetoric", truth is not a racially sensitive thing. If you want racial equality, all skin colors should be treated equally, and that includes both positive and negative treatment. I am sorry if that offends you, but truth is a blunt instrument, which occasionally hits us over the head, regardless of the skin color of your head.
True journalism should report the truth, and not bow to the forces of political correctness.
And still more:
Bannon’s personal history also has been mired in controversy. Shortly after he joined the Trump campaign, court documents revealed that his ex-wife, Mary Louise Piccard, had accused Bannon of domestic violence and anti-Semitic language in 2007. (The documents were obtained and first reported by the New York Daily News.)
“The biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend,” Piccard said in a statement to the court. “He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews.” Bannon has denied the accusations.Because nobody has ever made a false accusation in a divorce proceeding. Seriously, it is hard to see that as damning evidence.
However:
Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who worked closely with Bannon, called him a “legitimately sinister figure” in an article he published on the Daily Wire after Bannon joined the Trump campaign.
“Many former employees of Breitbart News are afraid of Steve Bannon. He is a vindictive, nasty figure, infamous for verbally abusing supposed friends and threatening enemies,” Shapiro wrote.So? I do that too. Verbally abusing friends doesn't mean anything. They abuse me back.
Threatening enemies? That is what is known as "normal human behavior".
That said, maybe Bannon is a truly awful boss. then again, maybe Shapiro has an axe to grind. We don't really know.
But we need to view Bannon's appointment with this in mind:
Bannon's appointment brings into focus many of the uncomfortable racial tensions surrounding Trump's campaign. Throughout the campaign, Trump's critics regularly accused him of using anti-immigrant language and racial grievances to motivate his supporters, charges that he denied and dismissed. He expressed surprise when asked about racial slurs that were being used against African Americans and other minority groups since his election during an interview with CBS's "60 minutes” that aired Sunday.
“I am very surprised to hear that. I hate to hear that, I mean, I hate to hear that,” Trump said in the interview, which was taped Friday. "I would say don't do it, that's terrible, because I'm going to bring this country together.
“I am so saddened to hear that. And I say stop it, if it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it,” Trump added.Keep in mind, if anyone had asked Hitler about abuse of Jews, he never would have said anything comparable to what Trump said. The racist allegations against Trump strike me as Leftist propaganda, and nothing more than that. If true racists like Trump, that is their choice.
As for Bannon, maybe he is a "vindictive" and "nasty" SOB like people describe him. But you need people like that around you, because they will be brutally honest with you.
In other Trump news...
CNN:
For the first time since winning the election, Donald Trump has weighed in on two of the most controversial social issues the Supreme Court has taken on ever: gay marriage, and abortion.
His answers could leave conservatives worried.
Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled," but committed to appointing justices who want to change the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming abortion rights.
The inconsistency in the question -- what is settled law? -- is sure to concern judicial conservatives who fear he may not live up to his promise to fill the empty Supreme Court seat with someone in the mold of their hero, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Above all else, judicial conservatives hope that Trump's eventual nominees to the Court will apply the Constitution as they believe it is written and enforce the limits on government power. They see both the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling -- Obergefell v. Hodges -- and Roe v. Wade as total failures in that regard. The fact that Trump interprets the cases differently might be some cause of concern.Ironically, Trump's views on this are almost libertarian (small "L" libertarian, not to be confused with the big "L" Libertarian Party).
In recent years, small "L" libertarians have been reviewing the question of abortion as a right, thanks in large part to the views espoused by both Ron and Rand Paul, who have opposed abortion on the grounds it violates the human rights of the fetus. As we have seen over the years, thanks to advances in medical technology, fetuses are becoming viable outside the womb (admittedly with extreme medical intervention) at earlier and earlier stages in development. Within the next century, it is entirely possible that a fetus could become viable instantly. If so, the fetus could easily be considered a full human, entitled to all the rights any human should have, including the right to live.
If that happens, killing a fetus based on a "right to privacy" would be as inane as allowing murder based on it. We can wait for the medical technology to make fetuses viable at any age, or we can anticipate the inevitable truth that fetal potential overrules the "right to privacy".
On the other hand, gay marriage is a tricky subject for conservatives, who tend to think of marriage in more religious terms. Conservatives need to recognize the difference between religious marriage and government marriage.
In most religions, marriage is clearly centered around procreation at its core. That isn't to say they ignore "love between man and woman", because that is also an important factor to a normally functioning family. However, the "go forth and multiply" order clearly takes precedence. On top of that, most religions frown upon gay relationships, when they don't call them a sin. Some religions have evolved to be more accepting of gay relationships, but that is between people and their religion.
On the other hand, government marriage is all about legal contracts. Because of all the legal implications of marriage, marriage is practically a legal contract of its own. Government marriage is NOT about procreation at all. While it may be descended from the concept of religious marriage, it is a legal concept now. As such, it cannot recognize any limitations on sex, sexual orientation, race, or anything else (although the taboo about close relatives marrying might remain for awhile, don't be surprised if that gets tossed out eventually). Ergo, gay marriage should be legal, which most libertarians also espouse.
Trump gets this one right too, with an almost libertarian view on the law. There is hope for this president yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment