Who Makes Policy Campaign 2016 Edition

My mom and I had been planning for well over a decade to go to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Since I am in DC this semester I had planned to fly her down from Boston and finally do what we had planned on doing for years. We did just that this weekend.

First, I suggest to everyone that you go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum while we are here. It is one of the most moving museums I have ever been to and it is worth remembering, and never forgetting, what a genocide on the scale of the Holocaust looks like.

That said, this was my second time visiting the museum. This time, my visit had a very different salience given the zeitgeist that is the 2016 election. We all know that Donald Trump is an authoritarian. This weekend we heard just that from Thomas Edsall and if you want a great primer on this Vox did the legwork.

What struck me was that the rise of Nazi Fascism (before the wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals began) is similar to some of the rhetoric of Trump. The blaming of other races for our problems (Mexicans and Muslims). This is very scary to me. Are we heading down this path? Could Trump’s predilection toward the authoritarianism lead America down a path to Fascism?

But we do not have to even look to Trump to see genocide and holocaust like behavior. Take Syria and the Syrian refugees. Much like Jews in the late 1930’s many nations are pulling the NIMBY card and refusing to take Syrian refugees, even limited numbers of them. Now the reasons are different as to why Jews were fleeing and why Syrians are fleeing; but, because Germany could not offload the Jews they were demonizing as the reason for Germany’s problems they enacted the final solution and began the wholesale extermination of millions of people. If Trump cannot build a wall could there be a final solution for Mexicans? Would my Puerto Rican husband be categorized as one because of his accent and skin tone? What happens to Muslims in the United States if Trump is President and there is a terrorist attack? Will Muslims be put in camps?

What about Darfur. The western world stood by and watched as one person attempted to cleanse their country of a race they saw as a threat or inferior.

This visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum has me thinking a great deal about whether or not it could happen again given recent events. Given the populist movements in America that see “non-American’s” as the problem? If globalization will raise people up to better lives around the world, which is arguably a good thing for humanity as a whole, how do we prevent those who are losing in the developed world from taking extreme measures?

It’s a hard thing to look at where we are and think that this could still happen, and in America of all places. Sadly, I think it could. Especially if the zeitgeist was just right. I have to then ask myself, what moral obligation do we have to fight back from this populist movement that we have in America? Does the RNC have a moral obligation to renounce Trump and his authoritarian populism? Can you be against Trump but still support the standard bearer of the Republican party and not de facto endorse the authoritarianism and populism and hate? Either way, we have to remember past atrocities and recognize when things may be going off course so we can correct things.

These are big questions. They are important questions. I wish I had the answers.

After months of negotiations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State John Kerry have agreed to a cease fire in the Syrian war. The agreement goes into effect tomorrow with the, “the cessation of all air and ground attacks by all parties, including the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” The agreement will bring a “pause” to fighting particularly in Aleppo, which will allow for humanitarian aid to reach civilians in need. The situation in Aleppo is dire with essentially no supplies reaching the city since early summer when it became encircled by Assad’s forces. The agreement looks promising and has the potential to bring about a more sustained peace. The next few weeks will be crucial, however, as a similar agreement was reached in February only to see the fighting resume a few weeks later.

Regardless of the logic behind free-trade agreements; they seem to be out of style along with almost everything else from the 1990’s. A candidate’s position or history with free-trade has become one of the weapons being used during the 2016 election year. From Ohio’s Senate race where “As he campaigns in Ohio, Mr. Portman, 60, spares no occasion to raise the threat of opioid abuse, a signature issue that establishes him as his own man, while fending off his opponent’s most dangerous attack: his long history as a free-trade supporter, putting him at odds with Mr. Trump’s base…Mr. Strickland, his opponent, wants voters to hear more about Mr. Portman’s stint as the country’s top trade negotiator under President George W. Bush. ‘The Best Senator China Ever Had’ “. To North Carolina where “U.S. Sen. Richard Burr is criticizing his Democratic challenger, Deborah Ross, saying she has failed to make clear her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership – a trade deal that critics say could add hurt North Carolina communities already damaged by the North American Free Trade Agreement”.

Therein lies the key, NAFTA. Even in towns once solidly Democratic due to their blue-collar nature, Democrats are losing ground. It is these non-deplorables that Hillary Clinton must connect with. They need to hear that she is going to fight for them. As Sean Posey noted in a recent article posted to Moyers and Company; “After years of watching manufacturing jobs hemorrhage from the area in the wake of plant closures, voters witnessed the 1993 signing of NAFTA, originally a vision of Republican Ronald Reagan, under President Bill Clinton… According to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, Ohio suffered some of the highest jobs losses of any state as a result of NAFTA. A recent report by EPI also states that America lost 2 million jobs in 2015 due to trade deficits with nations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership”. Hillary needs to stop playing Trump’s games. Those are his games, he made the rules and he will always win. You cannot out-crazy crazy. The voters that are supporting her already know that a large number of Trump supporters are deplorable; they do not need to be persuaded. The “deplorable” Trump supporters know they are deplorable, but feel justified; those supporters will never be persuaded. It is the “other basket” she must address in order to assuage their fears and for some, their pain. She needs to begin by addressing the economy and the inequalities within it. She needs to address the issues that preoccupy our minds. I worry about my future and that of my daughter, but it seems that neither candidate does.

The DNC should have learned something from Sanders. As Albert R. Hunt noted in The New York Times, “the public has moved closer to his view on economic fairness”. It is this sense that the economy and free-trade are unfair to the average person and only benefit the elites that both Bernie Sanders and Trump tapped into. “Bob Kish, a political communications veteran and president of Third Wave Communications, said both candidates have been able to turn feelings of economic hardship into political capital.’I think what both Trump and Bernie are tapping into is this anger, this frustration, this economic stagnation,’ Kish said”. If Democrats are to take the Senate and Hillary the Presidency, the both have two months to be heard so they better begin talking about the things that the disenfranchised are not hearing.

During his campaign, Trump has put so much emphasis on the fight against undocumented immigrants, but I wonder if his specific targeting of Mexicans is based in fact or just pure convenience. Well, I’m not actually wondering, I now know that while the numbers did used to point to Mexicans as having the highest number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year, the tide has recently shifted and people coming in from Asia – mostly China and India – have started to outnumber their Mexican counterparts. It should be noted that the data regarding Asian immigrants does not distinguish between those here legally or illegally, but this trend is still one that deserves to be recognized and studied further. I highly recommend everyone take a quick glance at this Wall Street Journal article because it includes a great interactive infographic that really makes clear just how drastically the face of immigration has changed in recent years…which leaves me wondering, yet again, where exactly Trump’s basis in targeting the Mexican immigrant population lies. Or could it possibly be that *gasp* there isn’t much logic or rationale involved when it comes to his decision-making process?

-Michelle

While all the focus here in the United States is on the wall Trump is just dying to build, the UK is a few steps ahead (or behind, really, if we’re thinking rationally) when it comes to blocking out the “undesirables.”

The refugee crisis is still going strong across the Atlantic, though reports of it may have died down quite a bit here as we’ve become wrapped up in more pressing domestic issues as our Presidential election date nears (and as we play right into the internationally held opinion that we are a self-obsessed nation of narcissists…? No, that can’t be right.) Jokes aside, it could provide some valuable insight to compare our current situation to that of the UK, which is currently in the beginning stages of actually building a wall to keep out any “wandering” refugees from the neighboring French port town of Calais. Many of the comments quoted in this article from The Guardian eerily mirror the  viewpoints of many Americans. I am curious to see the true effect that this wall will have and if the results will show themselves soon enough to serve as an example of what not to do (and hopefully sway some American opinions on the topic).

-Michelle

 

America is the land of immigrants – a melting pot of cultures as many like to say – however it is no secret that this country has not always welcomed everyone with open arms. If you think about it, there never really has been a time when our nation has indiscriminately welcomed anyone and everyone to come re-plant their roots and establish themselves as new Americans. Maybe that’s why Trump is an actual contender in the upcoming Presidential election. Maybe that’s why so much of America has not only accepted but also adopted his manner of speaking about certain ethnic groups. And maybe, just maybe, that is why as a collective group, we seem to be relatively desensitized to his oppressive and insulting choice of vocabulary when addressing some of the citizens of the country he supposedly is so eager to lead.

In this article regarding Trump’s most recent speech on immigration, Tim Kaine says “You could print that speech with Irish-Americans in it, and somebody gave that speech in 1850. You could print Italian-Americans in it, and somebody gave that speech in 1860 or 1870. You could put Jewish folks from Central and Eastern Europe and somebody probably gave that speech in the late 1800s.”

So yes, America has heard this type of talk before. And yes, it was damaging and shameful even then.

The only remaining question is: why aren’t we learning from history? Why has Trump been able to get so far with such an antiquated mentality in regards to immigrants? The dehumanization of an entire population of people based solely on their religion or ethnicity or even just skin color has proven to have disastrous effects in the past…and history does have a habit of repeating itself. But this is a habit we can break. This is a habit we need to break. The glimmer of hope here is that although we will always be fighting the good fight against human stupidity borne of ignorance, we now live in this wonderfully digital age which has allowed for unprecedented levels of awareness and information sharing. We just have to make sure certain voices are loud enough to drown out the others.

Senator Kaine warns us, albeit with a seemingly lighthearted rhyme (though I must admit it is catchy), that if we leave it up to Trump, the U.S. is going to become known as “deportation nation” rather than the “innovation nation” and “inclusion nation” that this country has the potential to be.

 

-Michelle

Two stories about China seem to be interesting today.

First, China has said that with regards to the dispute in the South China Sea that it will gladly work with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations but warned Washington to stay out of the matter in a veiled manner (see here).

The times had an interesting piece about how Australians are divided as to whether China (and the increase of trade with China) is a more important ally than the United states (43% – 43% with some undecideds). At the same time that trade has been booming with China, some Australians are concerned about China’s presence in the region and what that could spell for them. (See the Times piece here).

I am not sure quite yet what this means. I can say that with Russia being aggressive, China being dismissive, Australians wondering if China is a better ally then the US, I wonder to what extent the US has a good relationship in the East? Perhaps after 15 years of war in the middle east and using the stick to get what we want (and failing at that as well) the world is wary of what the US might do after November comes and goes.

The NY Times (Click above photo for article) has been doing a wonderful literary series for lack of a better term for our soon to be former president titled “The Obama Era.” Today’s piece touched on Climate Change and takes you through President Obama’s trials and tribulations through the last 8 years of being an ambassador for this cause. The article was written to show you the journey that the President has taken in order to get the the Paris Accord officially signed last week.  It’s interesting to look at political writing and the choice of words used, descriptors such as “climate evangelist” can be seen in this article, however I feel it gives a great overview of the challenges faced, how the president dealt with such challenges, as well as what our new president will inherit.

I have decided that I will do a little news roundup of the news on US-Russia now and again.

Today there was a lot of news about how a Russian fighter jet made an unsafe mid-air intercept of a US jet above the Black Sea (see here). This was also mentioned on the townhall-style presidential forum last night when Donald Trump claimed that this aggressive behavior was because America is not respected anymore (I will save the sarcastic comments about how he is the reason we are not respected, too late).

It seems that tensions continue to rise between the US and Russia in the post G20 week. The US Secretary of Defense warned Russia publicly not to interfere with the US election (see here).

So putting this in context, Russia got aggressive with one of our jets and the US drew a line in the sand with Russian tampering of the election. So how much of this is saber rattling and how much of this is the precursor to increased tension between the two superpowers?

Last night, at the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton certainly got a grilling.  She got peppered, both by moderator Matt Laurer of NBC News, and by the audience, with questions bringing to light her judgement.  She was hammered not only in regards to her e-mail scandal, but also in regards to her vote to support the Iraq War and her decisions as Secretary of State, with the underlying question at hand being whether we as a nation can trust Mrs. Clinton to use our armed forces for legitimate reasons.

But, let’s face it.  The real main event of the night was the half-hour where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump took the stage.  And, boy, did he deliver (as far as entertainment/scare factor is concerned).

During his portion of the forum, the Donald proceeded to heap much praise upon Russian President Vladimir Putin, referring to him as a great leader.  He talked about how he would convene with generals to formulate a plan to defeat ISIS, despite having previously said that he himself had a plan to take down the terror group that he didn’t want to make public (revealing, perhaps, that he has no such plan).  To add the cherry on top, he repeated his past statements about how the US should’ve “taken the oil” during the war in Iraq.

Quite an entertaining half hour as far as Mr. Trump is concerned.  Also a very frightening one.