From Heather Cox Richardson: she is writing from the position of a moderate (albeit one who has published several books on the history of the Republican party).
—-
“I don’t like to talk about politics on Facebook– political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends– but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night’s ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries– is creating what is known as a “shock event.” Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order. When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night’s Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one’s interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like. I don’t know what Bannon is up to– although I have some guesses– but because I know Bannon’s ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle– and my friends range pretty widely– who will benefit from whatever it is. If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event. A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln’s strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power. Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it.”
So – could it be we are all being “played” while the neo-Nazi alt right led by Bannon pursues its real agenda? Can all of us avoid factionalism, discarding those whose ideologies are not “pure enough” or who “supported the wrong candidate” and work together single mindedly to remain a constitutional Republic rather than an alt-right Nazi state?
Can we unite, in Lincoln’s name and memory as a government “of, by, and for the people” and let “bygones” of partisan political fights, old elections, and labels go so Bannon and the Alt-Right cannot play us?? I surely hope so. Please share if you hope so, too.
I recommended as I think it valid overall, but there is one error.
She states that “the EXO was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released”. Actually, it had been vetted by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which had approved it “with respect to form and legality” according to the New York Times. Yates took it upon herself to say that she did not think it a “wise or just” policy and refused to go to court. But it WAS legal.
It was an easy mistake to make, as it was reported as being off the cuff and invested. But lately, in all this criticism, I see these nuggets WAY down at the bottom of the story. The headlines – which is all that a lot of people read – are used to drum up hysteria and slake emotional needs. But as they repeatedly turn out to be hyperbole, it leads to crisis fatigue when shaky things can happen. And it confirms the public in the view that the media is lying so who cares what they say.
The reporting on OLC input has been pretty shaky at best, but that is largely due to the administration changing their story every few hours. First, no comment; then, no review; then, reviewing (present tense gerund); then, reviewed beforehand.
But even assuming there was a review, you overstate the significance of the “approved as to form and legality” assessment that OLC gives, which simply states nothing illegal on its face, but doesn’t get into substance.
Once one delves into substance, it fairly quickly becomes clear that (i) targeting permanent residents and green-card holders is illegal; and (ii) targeting based on nationality is directly in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Beforehand. Presumably, they checked. And they are hardly Trump cheerleaders.
And there is a difference between nationality and citizenship. We ban citizens from North Korea – is that a violation of the 1965 act? Anti-Korean? And as I said elsewhere, the EXO apples to a Hindu from Yemen, but not a Muslim from France.
But this morphing demonstrates what Amber posted. It confirms the idea that the media is trying to deceive.
Maybe it is an alternative fact.
Here is another alternative fact that has the added benefit of comporting with reality. North Koreans are eligible to immigrate into the United States, either as a South Korean national (North Koreans are eligible for South Korean citizenship after a few months’ transition period, or directly, since they are, as a matter of law, eligible for political asylum under the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, which was signed by President Bush.
Also, it seems pretty clear that the new ban is also targeted at dual-passport EU citizens who were born in one of the targeted countries. Some people in the administration are trying to walk that back now that they have realized that their ban would cover a Tory MP, but others aren’t.
So, it seems that the only one here who is deceived is you.