Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

Moral outrage

January 30, 2017

And here's Liel Leibovitz, with more on Trump's disgraceful immigrant ban:

The events of this past weekend have made it clear that Trump and his aides have no interest in governing. Had that been the case, they might’ve taken the trouble to explain the order and its purpose. They could’ve reassured millions of anxious Americans that Green Card holders needn’t worry. They would’ve allowed sufficient time to make sure we don’t cruelly and needlessly afflict those—like the Iraqi translator who had served with American forces in Iraq, say, or the brilliant Sudanese-born who is a resident at one of our best medical institutions—who merit an obvious exception to the ban.

They did none of that. In fact, they did the opposite, with senior Trump aide Steve Bannon overriding, according to some reports, orders by the Department of Homeland Security insisted that lawful permanent residents—men and women like myself, here legally—should be targeted as well, separated from their families for no other reason but the unhappy accident of their particular place of birth.

This should come as no surprise to anyone following this administration. Whatever else might be true about its aims, this much is absolutely clear: Trump and his people do not care about this nation in any form that I, and millions of others, recognize or cherish. They don’t care about its institutions or its traditions or its higher calling. They see the world as only terrified toddlers do, as an endless battlefield between those who stand with us and those who stand against us, a contest that could be decided only by means of domination, subjugation, and humiliation. And their enemies aren’t the terrorists lurking on some foreign shore; they’re millions of Americans whose hopes and ideas and convictions have made them the enemies of their own state. This is why Bannon has propelled himself to the National Security Council, why he gleefully went on the record and told the free press to keep its mouth shut, and why he advocated for the travel ban to be as painful as possible. A self-described Leninist, he knows all about the old Bolshevik’s favorite tactic, that of heightening the contradictions: do something outrageous, wait for your opponents to come out in full force, then rally the faithful with hysterical talk of impending peril. Czeslaw Milos captured this dynamic neatly: “I predict the house will burn; then I pour gasoline over the stove. The house burns; my prediction is fulfilled.”

The gravest danger of the Trump Administration, then, isn’t that its actions are objectionable to many Americans. It’s that they’re carefully designed to tear this nation apart, and to goad its citizens into a state of permanent conflict and unending mistrust. And that’s a crisis that calls out for more than political solutions. It demands moral outrage.

Posted in Uncategorized

11 responses to “Moral outrage”

Bill Peschel

January 30, 2017

Oh, please …. This faux outrage has been going on for so long that it’s become boring.
There is nothing “disgraceful” about a temporary suspension of immigration from eight dangerous Muslim-dominated countries (at least as Obama called them) for the purposes of reviewing security precautions to keep ISIS from entering the country.
That’s 8 countries (if I remember the number right) and that does not include major Muslim-dominated nations such as Egypt and Indonesia. Which undercuts your argument substantially.
Instead, we hear about a “Muslim ban” (which it isn’t) from the media and unhinged shrieking from the equally uninformed, egged on by Democratic-partisan media (as the hacked emails to Podesta clearly show) and Hollywood celebrities (who are the equivalent of our intellectual aristocracy.
And as for “tearing this nation apart,” I’ve had eight bloody years of hearing that because I am a white male, I’m a bigot, sexist, and rapist. And because I voted for Trump (who I didn’t particularly like) over a lying incompetent crook such as Hillary, I’m “deplorable.”
That ship sailed a long time ago, Nick.

LikeLike

Reply
Mick H

January 30, 2017

The ban will have absolutely no effect on keeping ISIS from entering the country, or on fighting Islamic extremism. ISIS are, predictably, delighted – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-iraq-iran-restrictions-travel-islamic-state-us-visa-a7552856.html
And it’s Mick, not Nick.

LikeLike

Reply
Bob-B

January 30, 2017

I wonder why the ban doesn’t extend to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Of course, it’s fairly obvious. As Nick Cohen says, we’re seeing “a new era in right-wing politics. Religious sectarianism tempered by his personal corruption”.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/825665917967282176

LikeLike

Reply
Dom

January 30, 2017

“Trump and his people do not care about this nation in any form that I, and millions of others, recognize or cherish. They don’t care about its institutions or its traditions or its higher calling.”
That sums it up.
I don’t understand the need for 90 days. Is it meant to give the administration time to come up with better vetting? We haven’t had foreigners attack US citizens since the 2015 San Bernardino attack (the woman was a foreigner). Ninety days isn’t buying much time.

LikeLike

Reply
djf

January 30, 2017

Mick not Nick,
Could you tell us how Hillary would have kept ISIS out of our country? She was going to put into overdrive Obama’s policy of moving as much of the Arab Sunni population of Syria to the US as possible, as quickly as possible. With the same cosmetic vetting by the UN and money-seeking resettlement NGOs.
Trump is going about this ineptly and half-assedly, as is typical of him, but that is not what has got people like you so enraged. What appears to anger you is the very idea that US does not exist for the benefit of foreigners.
And, btw, the “refugees” we’ve been taking come from refugee camps where they are quite safe (at least if they’re Muslim, as 99% of them are – Obama avoided taking in the Christians, for some strange reason). So please don’t trot out bogus analogies to turning away refugees from Hitler (as an earlier Democratic president did). As a US taxpayer, I’d be happy to contribute to efforts to resettle these lovely people in culturally similar parts of the world. I’m not interested in having more people who drank in Jew-hatred “with their mother’s milk” (to quote somebody in one of your recent posts) voting in our elections.

LikeLike

Reply
Dom

January 30, 2017

Bob-B (and Nick Cohen, if he’s reading), no country was actually named in the EO (except Syria). Instead, there is a link to a list of countries in a previous documents (under Obama) as countries that are a source of terrorism. This 90-day ban is just the next step.
I’m still against it, but I don’t think the choice of countries is a problem, and I don’t think Trump was thinking of his business deals.

LikeLike

Reply
Mick H

January 30, 2017

djf – Hillary was going to move “as much of the Arab Sunni population of Syria to the US as possible”? I can’t really take this stuff seriously.

LikeLike

Reply
Mick H

January 30, 2017

I mean – to elaborate – I don’t think there’s necessarily a problem with the US wanting to tighten up its immigration procedures – and after all this was part of what Trump was elected for. It’s just being done so ham-fistedly, so crudely. And so counter-productively. This isn’t goung to help in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Quite the reverse.
I can’t help seeing the hand of Steve Bannon here, as a kind of Mephistopheles, pulling the strings, and reveling in the chaos and confusion.

LikeLike

Reply
djf

January 30, 2017

Mick, I said as much of them “as possible.” That’s still a lot of people, none of whom we need. Certainly, more than enough to screw up the flyover communities on which they would be dumped. You might want to read up about how Somalian “refugees” forced on Minnesota have “enriched” that state. If Britain wants these sort of people, help yourself.

LikeLike

Reply
djf

January 30, 2017

I completely agree that Trump is doing this in a ham-fisted, clumsy, reflexive way that almost guarantees that he will not achieve any sustainable policy result. Reports are that he and his White House inner circle (Bannon, yes, and a young speechwriter named Stephen Miller – a Jewish guy, FWIW) are flying solo on this, without input even from the relevant departments, even Trump’s recent appointees (e.g. Mattis and Kelly). Hence idiocy like barring people who already have residency rights here.
By the time his term is up, Trump may turn out to have been the best thing ever to happen to the Left in the US. And their Islamist allies.

LikeLike

Reply
Lauri

January 31, 2017

Some very interesting articles here. Thank you.
It helps to have a consistent meditation practice, otherwise one could go mad. And then have to start on the Soma. We don’t want that.

LikeLike

Reply