US politics news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      Saudi-Qatar Reconciliation Provides New Opportunities for the Biden Administration

      by

      The incoming Biden administration was presented with a most welcome development when it was announced on January 4 that an agreement has been reached to end the three-year rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. On November 27, the Financial Times carried a long report headlined “Saudi Arabia seeks to resolve Qatar crisis as a ‘gift’ to Joe Biden.” Essentially, the newly announced rapprochement has the potential to enable the Biden administration to accomplish major goals in the Gulf region as well as in the overall Middle East.

      A good deal of credit for the breakthrough goes to Kuwait’s ruler, Emir Sheikh Nawaf. Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Ahmad Nasser al Sabah explained that “Based on Sheikh Nawaf’s proposal, it was agreed to open the airspace and land and sea borders between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Qatar.” Al Sabah added that Sheikh Nawaf had spoken with Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman. According to AP,  “The conversations ‘emphasized that everyone was keen on reunification,’ and would gather in Al-Ula to sign a statement that promises to ‘usher in a bright page of brotherly relations.’”

      Joe Biden Will Face a Much-Changed and Skeptical World

      READ MORE

      By way of background, on June 5, 2017, the Arab quartet severed diplomatic relations with Doha and imposed a land, sea and air blockade based upon contested accusations that Qatar supported Islamist extremist groups. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain also objected to Qatar’s relations with Iran. As a result, with some exceptions, notably to allow Qataris into Saudi Arabia to perform the Islamic hajj pilgrimage, Qatar’s only land border has remained closed, thus denying the import of products ranging from food to medical supplies to construction materials.

      The rift with Qatar also resulted in the separation of families, especially those who had intermarried on both sides of the border. In addition, Saudi Arabia prohibited Qatari planes from flying over its airspace, which forced its national airline to take longer and more costly routes. It has been estimated that Qatar pays up to $100 million in annual fees to fly over Iran.

      The Saudi decision to end the embargo is a major step forward, but it must be followed by additional initiatives by the other nations that had backed the boycott of Qatar. This was acknowledged by the UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, who tweeted that while Abu Dhabi hopes to restore Gulf unity, “We have more work to do and we are in the right direction.”

      Essentially, while ending the rift among the Gulf nations is important for the region, it also establishes new realities and opportunities for the Biden administration. It will enable the new administration to develop even closer relations with Qatar and set the tone for warmer than previously predicted relations with Saudi Arabia.

      Beginning in 1992, Qatar has developed close military ties with the United States and is now the location of US Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center. Qatar hosts the strategically important Al Udeid Air Base, which is staffed by more than 10,000 American service personnel and strike force aircraft used in campaigns against the Islamic State. Improved US-Qatari relations will enable the two nations to build upon their efforts against terrorism. In fact, as the White House website points out, President Donald Trump thanked Emir Tamim in January 2018 for efforts “to counter terrorism and extremism in all its forms.” Washington is also grateful to Doha for hosting a Taliban mission, thereby facilitating the Afghan peace talks. The Biden administration may also work with Qatar in at least four additional areas.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Following up on the UAE and Bahrain reaching normalization deals with Israel sets the stage for Qatar to play a larger role in pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace. Qatar is quietly providing humanitarian support for Palestinians in Gaza, which helps in keeping that conflict more manageable and could enable Doha to serve as an intermediary to deal with the wider conflict.

      Similarly, Qatar maintains good relations with both the United States and Iran. President-elect Biden and his top foreign policy officials have stated their hope that a new treaty can be worked out with Iran, one that builds on the nuclear pact negotiated by the Obama administration and then rejected by the Trump White House. Qatar is in a unique position to facilitate these diplomatic efforts. Significantly, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that he hopes reconciliation in the Gulf “contributes to the stability and political and economic development for all peoples of our region.”

      Qatar has also expressed its support for a number of other top priorities enunciated by the Biden administration, including dealing aggressively with climate change and distributing vaccinations to get the COVID-19 pandemic under control. Improved Gulf relations can also help Saudi Arabia to build warmer ties with the Biden administration than might otherwise have been the case.

      Joe Biden has called for a reevaluation of US relations with Riyadh during the Trump administration, which began when Donald Trump chose to visit Saudi Arabia as his first overseas destination as president and then extended to arms sales, a lax view of the war in Yemen and virtually excusing Saudi leaders for their role in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. In sum, while the final details of the deal that has been under discussion for several months is still in flux, it has the potential to shape a more positive agenda for the Biden administration.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Kim Jung-un’s Understanding of Self-Reliance

      by

      Like Diogenes wandering through the streets of Athens seeking an honest man, The Guardian seems to have stumbled across the first political leader willing to recognize the disappointing reality of his own politics. Who is that rare honest leader? North Korea’s ruler, Kim Jong-un. The Guardian offers this headline: “North Korea: Kim Jong-un says economic plan a near-total failure at rare political meeting.”

      Unlike his good friend Donald Trump, Kim has the luxury of not having to appeal to the masses for votes to hold on to power. And unlike Trump, he can afford to admit failure, even disastrous failure. Al Jazeera reports Kim’s admission that “the country’s economic development plan had fallen short in ‘almost all areas.’” Unlike Western leaders who blame the opposition for undermining their cherished programs, Kim, having eliminated or assassinated any pretenders, has no opposition to blame. That makes it less risky to admit his own failings. It also permits him to propose the solutions to those problems while being certain they will be carried out, though less certain about whether they will succeed or fail.

      US Media Still Has Russia on Its Mind

      READ MORE

      The Yonhap news agency quotes its leader as saying that “The surest and fastest way to tackle the current multiple challenges facing us is to make every possible effort to strengthen our own power and our own self-reliant capacity.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Self-reliant:

      Indifferent to the regard of others, free to operate with no consideration of one’s eventual critics and only suspicion of their intentions.

      Contextual Note

      Self-reliance has long been considered the preeminent virtue in US culture. The iconic 19th-century philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a famous essay with the title “Self-Reliance.” He quoted lines by Beaumont and Fletcher, contemporaries of Shakespeare:

      “Man is his own star; and the soul that can

      Render an honest and a perfect man,

      Commands all light, all influence, all fate.”

      For Emerson, self-reliance concerned the virtuous individual who can, through self-direction, become “honest” and “perfect,” meeting Diogenes’ strict requirement. Kim’s idea of self-reliance is the opposite. It has nothing to do with individuals. But for all their radical opposition, history has revealed a link between the two. For Kim, it is the state that must be self-reliant. Individual North Koreans under his regime must behave in conformity with his laws and rules. To Emerson’s assertion, “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist,” Kim would respond, “Whoso fails to conform undermines the ability of the state to remain self-reliant.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      What do these totally opposed versions of self-reliance tell us about the world we live in today? They define two extremes on the spectrum of responsibility. Emerson assumes that the “self” in the expression “self-reliance” is an individual with the liberty to oppose the surrounding society. Kim assumes that “self” is the nation, in opposition to all other nations. Everyone must identify with the national self to assert and maintain its independence. Anthropologists sum this up as two easily recognizable cultural orientations: Western individualism versus Asian collectivism.

      Emerson enjoined his readers to brave the opinions of others: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.” Although it was far from Emerson’s intention, successive generations of Americans interpreted his dictum as an obligation to focus only on their interests and desires. During the 20th century, Americans increasingly viewed themselves as autonomous individuals largely indifferent to the opinions of others. This produced a trend toward solipsism and narcissism, never more evident than in the personality of Donald Trump. Emerson, the moral philosopher, would have been shocked. He assumed the existence of a social consciousness because of what he called the “divine idea which each of us represents.”

      The subsequent romanticization of the idea of self-reliance, symbolized in the figures of Western pioneers and the lone cowboys, opened the floodgates to what would become the consumer society, ordered and managed by commercial interests. This led to an increasingly exacerbated form of consumerist individualism whose paradoxical effect was to create a new conformity in consumer habits that could no longer be challenged by a call to non-conformity. Nevertheless, Emerson’s expressed one idea that Kim might easily agree with: “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emerson saw this as applying to every individual American. Kim applies it only to himself, as the unique “mind” of his nation.

      Historical Note

      In his 1947 essay “The Engineering of Consent,” Edward Bernays, credited with inventing the profession of public relations, noted that broadcast media had radically transformed American culture. “All these media,” he wrote, “provide open doors to the public mind.” Bernays believed he was giving a practical application of the theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, about the unconscious and the role of raw impulses in human behavior. Bernays had been applying his new “science” of public relations to both business and politics for decades. In his 1928 book, “Propaganda,” he described his strategies as the “conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses” and claimed that it was “an important element in democratic society.”

      Freud would probably have disagreed with Bernays’ contention that “conscious and intelligent manipulation” of unconscious drives was a good thing. The founder of psychoanalysis famously wrote “wo Es war soll Ich werden,” which literally means “where it was I shall be.” American psychoanalysts have preferred another translation, “where the id was the ego shall be,” referring to Freud’s nomenclature that divides the personality into id, ego and superego. This suggested that the ego should control the id or even replace it. But Freudian purists, such as Jacques Lacan, claim that it should be read in a more mysteriously poetic vein as “I will come to where it was.” It’s more about having a look around the chaotic realm of the id than replacing it with the ego or using it for commercial purposes.   

      If Bernays represents the real impact of Freud’s theories on American culture, as Adam Curtis has demonstrated in “A Century of the Self,” it may paradoxically justify this remark Freud made to Carl Jung at the outset of their trip to America in 1909: “They don’t realize that we are bringing them the plague.” What Freud could not himself realize was that two decades later, his nephew would turn that plague into a devious means of controlling the masses, converting them into passive consumers and provoking a form of voluntary conformism that would prove far more effective than the conformity enforced by despots like Kim Jung-un.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Emerson buttressed his idea of self-reliance by an appeal to the moral laws philosophers deem self-evident. The far more pragmatic Bernays appealed to the American worship of the law to justify his approach. He saw a legal justification for propaganda in the US Constitution. The guarantee of freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights became, in his words, “the right of persuasion.”

      Bernays made it clear that there is something common to all leaders in the age of media: “Any person or organization depends ultimately on public approval, and is therefore faced with the problem of engineering the public’s consent to a program or goal. We expect our elected government officials to try to engineer our consent — through the network of communications open to them — for the measures they propose.”

      Even Kim Jung-un “depends ultimately on public approval,” though not in the form of an election. Kim engineers consent by decree. Whether their name is Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Blair, nations expect their leaders “to try to engineer our consent,” by exploiting what Bernays already called the “web of communications.” Bernays’ web of communications includes education, just as Kim’s does. It seeks “to bring about as complete an understanding as possible.” “Understanding” translates as approval of the programs the leaders promote, without having to “wait for the people to arrive at even general understanding.” People, for Bernays, are slow at understanding.

      In 1953, Bernays designed the propaganda campaign that permitted the CIA to overthrow Guatemala’s popular, democratically elected president, Jacopo Arbenz. The team of Bernays, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — Secretary of State John Foster and CIA Director Allen — engineered a faultless consensus that Kim Jung-un could only envy. Propaganda is the thing leaders can always rely on.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      How Do You Tell an Authoritarian From a Fascist These Days?

      by

      Recent developments in global politics, such as Donald Trump’s reelection campaign or the rise of illiberal democracies across Central and Eastern Europe, have arguably led to a misinterpretation of what many refer to as a “return of fascism.” Although authoritarian populism shares numerous similarities with fascism, these two ideologies differ markedly, both in terms of their ideological nature and of their danger, as well as the very real challenges that they pose to liberal democracies in the 21st century.

      Donald Trump: The Worst Kind of Populist

      READ MORE

      The term “fascism” is a complex ideological label that has found historical prominence in both 20th century Italy and in Nazi Germany between the two world wars. The concept is currently applied broadly in academic literature to identify radical-right political parties, right-wing authoritarian (or military) regimes or even movements sympathetic to fascism. However, the term is more properly used when referring to the ideology that was promoted and implemented by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the interwar period.

      Fascism Versus Authoritarianism

      Historically, fascism derives its roots from nationalism, totalitarianism and the myth of violence. Firstly, through the advent of nationalism, fascism does not only try to achieve ethnic homogeneity of the members of the community but also introduces the concept of national superiority over other peoples and nations.

      Secondly, to comprehend totalitarianism, it is necessary to keep in mind the impact of the Great War and the depersonalization of the individual. For fascism, an individual is a “tool” used to pursue the interests of the state, which coincide directly with the interests of the fascist party. However, fascism is not limited solely to obedience, as has been shown, among others, by Hannah Arendt. It claims legitimacy by obtaining the consent of the masses and, to accomplish this, fascism as an ideology is mobilized and tends to encompass all sectors of society. As the self-styled Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile remarked, “for fascism everything is in the state and nothing is outside the state, in this sense the state is totalitarian.”

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      Finally, the myth of violence is one of the most important tenets of fascism. Enemies are everywhere, and fascism must assert itself through violence (extreme, if necessary). This pattern inevitably undermines any forms of pluralism. For this reason, for fascist ideologues, this eventual clash is inevitable, and, eventually, all the principles of both liberal democracy and representative institutions fall.

      In defining authoritarian populism, we can refer to the “fourth wave” in the radical-right literature as outlined by Cas Mudde. Mudde argues that there are three core patterns that make up this ideology, comprising nativism, authoritarianism and populism. Firstly, nativism refers to the “membership” of the nation, which is determined by ethnic terms. This notion is also related to the exclusionary pattern of radical-right parties that tend to argue that multiculturalism should be considered as a threat to the national heritage and cultural traditions. Consequently, the state should impede access to those immigrants who differ from the majoritarian ethnic group; or, alternatively, immigrants should entirely adopt the national culture and fully assimilate.

      Secondly, authoritarianism refers to what extent a society should be strictly controlled by the state in order to maintain security and order within the borders of the country. This pattern is linked to the strong emphasis on law and order which “is directed not only against external threats (immigrants and asylum seekers) and criminal elements, but also against its critics and political opponents.” Finally, the notion of populism refers to the well-known definition of conflict within current societies, between the people (represented by the radical right) and the elite (mainstream politicians and the political establishment).  

      The Cult of the Leader

      It is clear from the above analysis that fascism and authoritarian populism are different, ideologically speaking. Nonetheless, there are two elements that are significantly comparable in both ideologies. The first is the cult of the leader, or fanatism. The fascist leader isn’t just someone to obey or support, but also serves as an image in which the electorate can feel represented. This image is one that is omnipotent and omniscient. For example, Mussolini was portrayed as a hero in all fields — “a hard worker, an athlete, an airplane pilot” and so on — in order to create a cult of personality.

      A similar cult of personality was also portrayed in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, via the Führerprinzip — the leader principle. In this regard, US Present Donald Trump also (indirectly) reminds us of this type of leader. Trump often boasts of his “unlimited” knowledge and unprecedented achievement in various fields, from science and defense to economics and race relations.  

      Trump also speaks through his body. For example, after the first presidential debate against former Vice-President Joe Biden, President Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19. Once recovered, he staged a dramatic return to the White House to demonstrate strength in having defeated the virus and being immune from it. A not too dissimilar scene also played out in Brazil, with President Jair Bolsonaro also contracting COVID-19 but dismissing it as nothing more than an ordinary bout of flu.

      In both fascism and authoritarian populist ideologies, the leader is presented as an invincible figure that most of the times is described (most often by the state propaganda machine) as the savior of the homeland from ruin. So, Mussolini should have restored the ancient splendor of the Roman Empire, while Trump was supposed to “Make America Great Again.”

      Creation of the Enemy

      The second analogy is the creation of an enemy. Recalling how fascism was founded on the myth of violence, conflict does not take place only on ethnic or religious, but also on political grounds. Thus, anybody who represents a danger to the stability of the fascist authority in the country should be eliminated (for the good of the nation itself).

      As the Soviet author Vassily Grossman explains in his famous 1970 novel “Everything Flows,” the “scalpel is the great theorist, the philosophical leader of the twentieth century.” With this image, Grossman exemplifies how totalitarianism (including fascism) envisaged a certain political project — founded on purely abstract ideological principles applied in the real world — and everything that is not included in this project must be eliminated and overthrown.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Fascism does not foresee discussions or compromises with the other side. In this same regard, even authoritarian populism does not offer dialogue to the opposition, since its raison d’être is to interpret society as a Manichean conflict between “the pure people versus the corrupt elite,” which does not include dialogue between these “two homogeneous and antagonistic groups.”

      For example, during his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump declared several times that he would have Hillary Clinton jailed and later accusing former President Barack Obama of “some terrible things” that “should never be allowed to happen in our country again.” This is an example of how Trump, an authoritarian populist leader, identifies the political counterpart as an enemy, thereby leaving no space for discussion or disagreements. Scholars such as Matthew Feldman, the director of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, have even recently remarked about the fascist ideological nature of President Trump. Recent events in the United States, such as yesterday’s storming of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, by pro-Trump rioters hoping to overturn the election result, give rise to fears about a neo-fascist wave.

      Ideological Differences

      Although fascism and authoritarian populism share two important ideological features, it might be easy to forget that fascism was, on the one hand, a conservative militia with the goal of subduing communist mass strikes of workers and peasants. On the other hand, it was born as a revolutionary movement. Indeed, the main historical goal of fascism was to overthrow the modern state “with its connotations of industrialism, individualism and bourgeois values.”

      Put simply, the project of fascism was to reject liberal democracy, political pluralism and the market economy. Authoritarian populism’s aim is not to overthrow the democratic regime — instead, it is a part of the democratic system. Even though authoritarian populist leaders can achieve political power in government, they are not immune from the overall democratic process, especially when they lose power. President Trump’s loss in the 2020 US election, despite his claims of voter fraud, demonstrates this fact.

      The year 2020 will surely be remembered for the significant impact that COVID-19 has had on globalized societies. During the first wave of the pandemic, national governments called for nationwide solidarity, and many succeeded in achieving it. At the same time, the past year may have ushered in authoritarian populism as the new zeitgeist of the next decade: The long-term impact of COVID-19 may benefit radical-right parties as the second wave of the pandemic wave has caused an even longer period of economic and social deprivations.

      Authoritarian populism may play a legitimatizing role in democratic regimes, and it is important to note that this ideology has become increasingly mainstreamed and normalized. While authoritarian populists should not be defined as fascists if they do not abolish democratic institutions, this normalization process represents the main threat to liberal societies across the globe in the 21st century.

      In contrast to neo-fascist movements, which are significantly opposed to democracy, the leaders of authoritarian populist movements are allowed to participate in the democratic game, to fuel protests politics among citizens and to capitalize on these in order to achieve power. Donald Trump’s insistence that the election was stolen from him to spur his supporters to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory has left four dead. As the world watched an “insurrection incited by the president” at the heart of the world’s oldest democracy, it is clear that the line between fascism and authoritarian populism is becoming increasingly blurred.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      US Media Still Has Russia on Its Mind

      by

      In December, a breaking story about massive hacking of US computer networks dominated The New York Times columns for weeks. With the new year, The Times is still nourishing its alarmed indignation at the evil force behind the event. In an article this week, David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Julian E. Barnes describe the event as “a hacking, now believed to have affected upward of 250 federal agencies and businesses … aimed not at the election system but at the rest of the United States government and many large American corporations.”

      Can Mike Pompeo Swagger His Way Into 2024 Election?

      READ MORE

      In an opinion piece from December, Thomas P. Bossert, former homeland security adviser to President Donald Trump, described the event as an attack on “the networks of the federal government and much of corporate America” which were “compromised by a foreign nation.” Consistently with The New York Times editorial policy in place for the past four years, he went further than the non-committal reference to “a foreign nation” and designated a particular nation as the culprit: Russia.

      Bossert explained not only why he could jump to this conclusion, but also why it was so fearful: “Domestic and geopolitical tensions could escalate quite easily if they use their access for malign influence and misinformation — both hallmarks of Russian behavior.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Hallmark:

      A term designating a superficial feature of a hostile act that, thanks to some vague similarity with incidents from the past, can be cited as conclusive proof of culpability, which proves especially useful when no tangible evidence exists to blame the party one prefers to blame.

      Contextual Note

      Consumers of mainstream media should by now understand that when they encounter the word “hallmark,” it expresses a supposition of guilt when the journalist has no real evidence to back it up. For example, a December 2016 piece in The New York Times stated that “In post-Soviet Russia, the same cynical mendacity has become the Putin government’s hallmark.” In August 2019, another article claimed that “Several American officials who follow Russia closely say the hacking bears the hallmark of an operation by Russia’s military intelligence service.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      Sometimes, the term “earmarks” is used to express the same idea. In October, the story of Hunter Biden’s compromising emails broke, to the delight of Donald Trump’s campaign.The media supporting Joe Biden responded with the assessment of the intelligence community: “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’” No one denied the reality of the emails, but accusing the Russians made the story sound fake.

      To establish a “truth” worthy of the media, the US intelligence community systematically looks for hallmarks or earmarks. Because the assessment comes from intelligence, the media present it as fact. On January 2, David Sanger claimed that the culprit of the massive hack was “almost certainly a Russian intelligence agency, according to federal and private experts.” On January 5, Sanger and Barnes offered this update: “American intelligence agencies formally named Russia as the ‘likely’ source of the broad hacking.” Their use of “almost certainly” and “likely” tells us that nothing is certain about that claim. It does, however, tell us what the intelligence community wants Times readers to believe.

      It didn’t take long for the Boston Herald to notice that the “classic earmarks” in the Hunter Biden story cited above turned out to have been totally imaginary. In the same document, the officials paradoxically admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” The Herald comments: “That also should have tipped reporters off to the fact that the letter was rank speculation masquerading as informed analysis, but true to form, they happily ran with it instead.”

      In a post-truth world, the media runs happily with anything it believes will excite its audience. Spinning accusations against Russia serves not only the media, but also the objectives of the political class. With no clear evidence about who the perpetrator may be, Julian E. Barnes, writing for The New York Times on December 18, reported on the reaction from politicians: “The recent hack on numerous federal agencies by Russia’s elite spy service demonstrated the need for new defenses, key lawmakers said.” Is it a coincidence that the scandal broke at the very moment Congress was preparing to vote on the Defense Authorization Act, with its bloated $740-billion price tag?  

      Democratic Senator Mark Warner was delighted to echo the media’s accusations on December 20. “All indications point to Russia.” By “indications” he obviously meant hallmarks. Warner added that Russia “came away with a big, big haul.” But even today nobody knows what the hackers were seeking or what they may have purloined. No one has signaled any form of damage. The hackers may, after all, just have been gathering information, which is what every nation routinely does.

      AP offered the most honest take, avoiding a direct accusation of Russia: “U.S. government statements so far have not mentioned Russia. Asked about Russian involvement in a radio interview Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged that Russia consistently tries to penetrate American servers, but quickly pivoted to threats from China and North Korea.” Russia spies. What else is new?

      Historical Note

      Could all this simply be a case of the good, old, tried-and-true strategy of fear that emerged during the Cold War and has been renewed regularly by Western governments ever since? Filmmaker Adam Curtis documented this historical pattern in his compelling three-part survey, “The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear.” In Curtis’ words, politicians “turned to fear not because of a real enemy outside, but because they feel their own sense of legitimacy and authority dwindling.”

      Nearly a month after the initial report, can we say there is a real enemy? On December 17,The Times expressed its “concerns that hackers could ultimately use their access to shutter American systems, corrupt or destroy data, or take command of computer systems that run industrial processes. So far, though, there has been no evidence of that happening.” With all the talk about Russia but only hallmarks for evidence, nothing tells us that the hacking may not have come from another credible source, like Israel for example or, more credibly, from the NSA, which has always denied domestic spying. It was NSA Director James Clapper’s denial, under sworn testimony during a Senate hearing, that incited Edward Snowden to release his trove of confidential data proving the contrary.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Since the Cold War, Americans expect Russia to be dreaming of harming the US. Any clever operator should know that accusing Russia of what the US itself may be doing — in this case, spying on its own corporations to better control the economy — makes a lot of sense. People immediately find the accusation against Russia credible. They won’t even think about suspecting their own intelligence services. But there is no evidence to support the idea that US intelligence did it … other than hallmarks.

      And many such hallmarks exist. The anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 permitted the George W. Bush administration to blame them on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was known to have experimented with anthrax, initially provided by the US during Saddam’s war with Iran. Everyone could see at the time that Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq, which he only managed to do in March 2003 after a massive campaign of creative disinformation.

      The anthrax plot failed because the strain of anthrax used had its own “hallmarks.” It was produced only in the US and specifically at a defense laboratory at Fort Detrick. The authorities took years to find a patsy to accuse in a “lone wolf” scenario. The FBI’s psychological campaign eventually drove the presumed culprit to commit suicide, obscuring any investigation into possible complicity from the team at the White House, who had the most to gain from the operation.

      On the day the story of the massive hack broke on December 12, the author of spy novels, David Cornwell, aka John le Carré, died. It’s unfortunate, because Le Carré might have been the most qualified person to tease out the play of interests and intrigues that lies behind this spying hack of the century.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      2020 Has Shown That We Are Not “Better Than This”

      by

      I hit 75 years old a little over two weeks ago. All in all, I have been lucky throughout my life to have found much to be thankful for as each birthday rolled around on the shortest day of the year. Early on, I couldn’t understand why my birthday was shorter than everyone else’s and was a little bitter about it until I figured out that it was a daylight issue and nothing more sinister than that.

      The Problem of Food Security in America’s Consumer Society

      READ MORE

      While I also had some rough patches, I got through most of them because I had enough good fortune and the resources to help it along. But I have got to tell you that the year that has now drawn to a close has often seemed like a long winding dark tunnel that might never end. While I am sure that there are those not paying much attention, who aimlessly go through life caring only about their moment, I believe that even that comfort seemed hard to find.

      Assault on the Human Spirit

      It is not just the pandemic that has blighted the landscape for those paying attention. It was a year that assaulted the human spirit. I can imagine that Americans are not the only ones feeling this way, but we sure managed to eviscerate what could have been a national spiritual awakening in the face of adversity. Well over 350,000 Americans have paid with their lives for our national failure, with many more to come.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      But one thing haunts me more than anything else. It is the reality that there are children in America and elsewhere who do not have enough food to sustain their health and allow them to dream and thrive. I always had enough food to eat when I was a child, sometimes way too much. My son always had enough food too, and he eats a lot. Yet somehow, I have always hoped that you didn’t have to suffer hunger to care a lot about those who are hungry. But here I am, amidst so many still with so much, angry as hell that there can be a projected 18 million children going hungry here and now in America.

      If you are not hungry and your children are not hungry, then you should have the energy to be angry with me about those who are hungry and angry enough to demand that your government do something about this and angry enough to pay more taxes so that it can. Food banks, food charities and individuals buying an extra bag of groceries for someone who is hungry are both part of the problem and part of the solution. But it can only be part of the solution if we do not allow ourselves to be pulled away by our charity from the image of a hungry child.

      So many have said so often (it was an Obama favorite) that “We are better than this.” I hope that we have proven to ourselves — and I know that we have proven to others — that we simply are not better than this. Americans are what they have proven to be. Hungry children in our midst are the easiest barometer of our collective immorality.

      There is much more going on, of course. The unmasked continue to roam our public spaces, food lines and queues for COVID-19 tests continue to grow, health care is being rationed even to those with supposed access to it, systemic racism has not taken a vacation, and our “democratic” institutions are crumbling while the repair crew may not be up to the rebuilding task. For others, there may be even more. This just passed year of assault on the human spirit is likely to continue well into the new year.

      End of This Tunnel

      I know about the vaccines — and we will get to that — and the tunnel that the vaccines are supposed to be the light at the end of. Before that, it is worth noting that the impending Biden presidency and some of his cabinet selections promise a return to some measure of competent governance and the ethics and empathy required to accomplish it. For sure, there will be time to debate specific policies and programs and to sound the alarm if the forgotten remain forgotten in a rush to return to “normal.”

      And we can hope that Joe Biden and his team see the clear need for public accountability for those in the Trump administration, foremost Donald Trump himself, whose corruption and mendacity poisoned our nation and paved the way for disease and death to overwhelm us. There can be no pardoning this if the nation is to move forward.

      Then, before celebrating the light, there will be the challenges posed by the vaccines. First, there will be the simple medical questions with complicated answers: Do the vaccines provide immunity and for how long? Do they prevent the transmission of disease to others? Are they safe? Next up will be the logistical challenges: How do you get enough vaccines from manufacture through delivery to inoculate 330 million people? Most importantly, assuming that the vaccines are effective and safe, and assuming that the logistical challenges are met, who will get which vaccine and when?

      The answers to the safety and efficacy questions likely will emerge in the coming months from scientists given a new lease on integrity by the Biden administration. Meeting the logistical challenges will have to await a national plan that overrides the already-emerging chaos of the present 50-state solution. But the most complex challenge and the one that America has failed time and again is the equity challenge — who will get which vaccine and when.

      Embed from Getty Images

      I have no hope at this moment, after so many failed moments in just the past year, that large swaths of Americans will wake up one morning and start thinking about something beyond themselves. It is most likely our individual selfishness that both propelled Donald Trump to the presidency and gave him a compelling voice that gave so many Americans the space to stand idly by and watch so much suffering of others in their midst. To the unmasked and their ilk, I say screw you. To those who have tried, I say keep trying and keep your distance from those who aren’t.

      Then, when the vaccines come, don’t stand idly by this time, as the selfish find a way to jump the line. To those who every day have provided essential services at great personal risk, you are going to have to fight for those vaccines in this America. If you don’t, your luck will run out and the unmasked will be laughing at you as they party on.

      I am not sure where America is in its dark tunnel nor even the full measure of that tunnel. I am sure that way too many Americans are unwilling to sacrifice much of anything for the well-being of others. There eventually will be a light at the end of this tunnel, but what of the next one?

      *[This article was cross-posted on the author’s blog, Hard Left Turn.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Can Mike Pompeo Swagger His Way Into 2024 Election?

      by

      The Daily Devil’s Dictionary has been a feature of Fair Observer for more than three years. Consistent with Fair Observer’s policy of crowd-sourced journalism, we have in the past expressed the hope that some new contributors, inspired by our example, may be incited to propose an article that follows the same format. We maintain an open invitation to anyone motivated by the potential ambiguity of language presented in the media. 

      Every entry in the Daily Devil’s Dictionary aims to provide enough circumstantial, cultural and historical context to deepen our perception of the meaning behind the words and phrases glossed. Typically, we cite well-known public figures but also journalists and various media personalities. 

      Texas: The End of Authentic America?

      READ MORE

      Today’s possibly involuntary contributor, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has made several appearances in these columns (for example, here, here, here and here.) Today, however, it is the first time Pompeo is the one who offers an original definition of a word he himself appears to enjoy using. He offered this astonishing definition in a tweet with the hashtag #swagger.

      In today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition, we quote Secretary Pompeo verbatim:

      Swagger:

      To represent America with pride, humility, and professionalism. We’ve done it.

      Contextual Note

      Alas, Mike Pompeo may have missed the point made by Ambrose Bierce or even of his predecessor, Dr. Samuel Johnson, the author of the very serious dictionary of the English language. Johnson sought to account for the full breadth of the English language in a fundamentally scientific approach to his sources. He nevertheless understood that some definitions and redefinitions require a touch of irony to reveal the true secrets of their significance. For example, Dr. Johnson gave the definition of “luncheon” — a relatively new concept at the very moment of history that saw the culinary innovation of the Earl of Sandwich — as “as much food as one’s hand can hold.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      More closely related to Pompeo’s profession, Johnson defined the word “politician” as initially “one versed in the arts of government.” He nevertheless felt impelled to add a second meaning: “a man of artifice; one of deep contrivance.” As the former director of the CIA, Pompeo knew something about the art of contrivance. In 2019, he explained the kind of radical contrivance he was skilled at when he confessed, to resounding applause, that, as CIA director, he “cheated, lied and stole.” 

      The problem, in contrast to Johnson and Bierce, is that Pompeo seems immune to irony. His definition of “swagger” reveals what appears to be a total absence of irony in his thought processes. He even fails to acknowledge the implicit irony that becomes evident as soon as an official definition of swagger is evoked, like the one offered by Merriam Webster’s of the verb form: “to conduct oneself in an arrogant or superciliously pompous manner, especially: to walk with an air of overbearing self-confidence.”

      Pompeo equates the dictionary’s “superciliously pompous manner” and “overbearing self-confidence” with “humility and professionalism.” This kind of inversion of meaning provides the key to understanding what many powerful politicians believe about their own actions: that their obsequious service to power is a manifestation of personal humility. They fail to notice that what they are doing is executing policies designed to express an attitude of supercilious arrogance.

      But it gets worse. Merriam Webster offers a second definition of the verb “swagger.” It proposes three synonyms, “boast,” “brag” and “bully,” accompanied by the following definition: “to force by argument or threat.” In this definition, the reader will recognize Pompeo’s penchant for imposing sanctions and threatening military force against any nation that doesn’t sycophantically fall into line with US policy.

      Pompeo adds to his curiously antinomic definition a note of self-congratulation, something no author of a dictionary would ever do: “We’ve done it.” By calling attention to his own accomplishments, he inadvertently justifies the original meaning of the word as he expresses his “overbearing self-confidence,” to say nothing of his Trumpian vanity and narcissism.

      Historical Note

      Many see Secretary Pompeo as a future Republican presidential candidate. There are indications that he currently processes what he sees as the historical lesson delivered by his guru, Donald Trump, following his surprising electoral success in 2016. Total self-confidence, bluster, lies and narcissism can deliver victory. Even when losing to Joe Biden in November, Trump attracted some 74 million votes.

      If Pompeo can avoid the irritating tics that motivated television’s late-night comedians to create a wave of intense personal hatred for Trump that in turn motivated their audiences to vote not so much for Joe Biden as against the incumbent, Pompeo may feel he has a reasonable hope of emerging as the kind of more palatable swaggering strongman that a lot of American voters appear to appreciate. He could assume that he will attract not only the 74 million who voted for Trump but many others across the spectrum who are increasingly fed up with the kind of traditional DC elites Joe Biden and Kamala Harris exemplify. The Democrats need to be careful to avoid a repeat of 2016. But, if history is any guide, they won’t be.

      Pompeo has another advantage. Unlike the president, he is an authentic evangelical, a true God-fearer and churchgoer, unlike the obviously immoral Trump. Pompeo believes in his own divinely appointed destiny. Moreover, he appears to be interested, in a way Trump never was, in language itself, the key to winning elections and exercising power. His recent activity as a lexicographical revisionist may indicate that he is preparing to create his own updated version of George Orwell’s Newspeak. “Swagger” is simply the first item in his new dictionary.

      Embed from Getty Images

      After the four-year Trump fiasco Republicans are left wondering how to recast themselves. One big challenge will be to find a way to deal with Trump. Some of them might be tempted to rally around Pompeo just to keep Trump at bay. After four predictably calamitous years of a Biden-Harris administration, Pompeo may see himself as bursting onto the scene to save America with the promise of turning the US into the “Nation of Swagger.” He has already semi-officially renamed his State Department the “Department of Swagger.” 

      Still, it’s too early to discount Biden, who has shown signs of wanting to do something similar. Almost all of his speeches conclude with this stale refrain: “This is the United States of America. And there has never been anything we haven’t been able to do when we’ve done it together.” This may not be swaggering per se, but it communicates the intent to swagger. Especially when he follows it up with sentiments such as, “now … we embark on the work that God and history have called upon us to do.” Biden simply lacks Trump’s and Pompeo’s brand of swagger to make his bullying sound credible.

      The word “swagger” has been in the English language at least since Shakespeare, who used it in multiple contexts. Feste, the clown, closes the play “Twelfth Night” by lamenting the sorrows of his life In his song, “The Wind and the Rain.” It includes this stanza:

      But when I came, alas! to wive,

                  With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,

      By swaggering could I never thrive,

                  For the rain it raineth every day.

      It isn’t clear whether Feste regrets having married the woman who became his wife or whether he simply expresses his disappointment at learning that married life forced him to rein in his swaggering. In both cases, he appears to accept, unlike Pompeo, that swaggering is a less than respectable form of behavior.

      No one is positioned to tame Mike Pompeo’s swagger. His wife certainly hasn’t sought to play that role. She has even been accused of having her own taste for swaggering concerning lavish State Department parties she organized and personal travel. She eventually beat the rap, though it was established that she had clearly bent official rules. Pompeo understands that in the world of political hyperreality, swagger is a key to being elected to the most powerful office in the world and occupying the limelight. He now has three years ahead of him to hone his skills at swaggering before the next round of Republican primaries begins in 2023.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Texas: The End of Authentic America?

      by

      At Fox News, Tucker Carlson has found a new reason to sound the alarm in the war waged by liberals against the sacred traditional values of the United States. Having noticed the trend of Californian capitalists, including Elon Musk, who have begun transferring their allegiance from glitzy California to the land of gun-toting cowboys, Carlson fears the effect of a cultural takeover. The invasion by faithless, narcissistic West Coasters risks undermining and compromising the noble pioneering traditions that Texas has so faithfully preserved.

      Although originally a native of California, Carlson understands the symbolic role Texas has always played in defining America’s rugged individualism and the spirit of frontier justice that defines America. Texas alone has remained pure. Now he fears that purity may be threatened by contamination far worse than any coronavirus.

      In an interview with Greg Abbott, Carlson put on his most deeply concerned face with an appropriately knitted brow as he aggressively challenged the Texas governor to react to the threat. He appeared to accuse Abbott of underestimating the risk and failing to defend his state from the impious assault, surely the equivalent of Santa Anna’s soldiers attacking the Alamo.

      When Bad Customers Love Your Brand

      READ MORE

      Abbott showed the fortitude worthy of Davy Crockett as he defended the integrity and the seductive power of his state’s culture. Responding boldly to Carlson’s attack, he explained that it’s precisely because the Californians understand the superiority of Texan culture that they are making the move. He framed it in quasi-religious terms, as if it were a form of born-again conversion: “They believe in God, they believe in guns and they are so excited about coming to the state of Texas and getting a gun they couldn’t have in California. It’s the people who want to re-engage with the faith, people who want to have guns, the people who believe in fossil fuel and they’re trying to get away from the hostile positions of California against all of those issues.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Believe in (an object):

      Consider a particular object to be worthy not just of consideration or admiration, but of reverential respect and even worship, by attributing to it a status similar to that of a divine object or even a savior.

      Contextual Note

      Belief has always trumped knowledge in US culture. For example, rather than considering the reality of the use of lethal weapons in modern society, the media often cites the idea that someone believes in Second Amendment rights. Even NPR can introduce a feature on the NRA with this reflection: “So if you’re a gun owner that believes in second amendment rights, does the NRA represent your interests?” Articles about politicians or even law enforcement officials who militate for laws to control or outlaw military-grade weapons often contain the disclaimer that he or she believes in Second Amendment rights.

      The laws of most nations exist to define as explicitly as possible licit and illicit behaviors. They avoid building expectations about what people should believe. But one aspect of American exceptionalism appears to be the elevation of the status of the Constitution to the equivalent of holy scripture, something that requires not just acceptance by citizens as a legal framework but an act of faith. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      To some extent, the idea of believing in the articles of the Bill of Rights makes some sense. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution assert abstract principles that are largely formulated negatively rather than as universally applicable affirmations of freedom. They express the limitations on what the federal government is empowered to do in relation to the governments of the states, seen as autonomous legal structures. As such, the Bill of Rights contains abstract terms like “right” and “freedom,” and the language is peppered with a series of “shall nots.”

      These restrictions leave open the idea of how the states may choose to constrict those rights and freedoms within their borders. This ambiguity encourages people to “believe” rather than affirmatively “know” that some behavior they value is foreseen or guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, the debate about what people call “gun rights,” which encourages people to believe that guns themselves have rights, turns around a real question of belief rather than knowledge. It requires an act of faith in the rather absurd idea that a metaphysical principle exists requiring government at all levels (federal, state, municipal) to refrain from regulating the ownership of lethal weapons. It turns guns into sacred objects.

      What Governor Abbott is saying demonstrates that the idea that belief should always trump knowledge. He says Californians migrate to Texas essentially for religious reasons because they believe in God, guns and oil. In more realistic terms, what he appears to mean is that such people see God, guns and oil as essentially good and beyond criticism. In the case of God, that poses few problems because acts attributable to God appear to be intangible and will never be adjudicated in a courtroom. But guns and oil have a very real impact on the human and physical environment.

      The gist of Abbott’s meaning is that human society must do nothing to oppose the exploitation of these objects or criticize their effect on the environment. Guns serve to protect property, and oil serves to produce income and jobs. That defines goodness, and Texas is all about goodness.

      In such a context, it is worth listening to the commentary of a prominent conservative Texan pundit, Saagar Enjeti, about the question that so troubles Tucker Carlson: “Let’s all be honest here about what’s waiting down there in the land of Texas. It ain’t just more space, it’s the lack of income tax.” Enjeti calls it “tax arbitrage” and points out that “the entire state government is designed for outcomes like this.” He describes the ethos of Texas as being based on the idea of the government doing “as little as possible.” Californians move to Texas not because they love guns and oil, but to keep their money for themselves.

      Carlson finally seems appeased when Abbott tells him that all will be well because while the Californians moving to Texas are gun-lovers, at the same time, Texan liberals are moving to California because of their love for government regulation. But to underscore his original point, Carlson concludes by invoking the fate of the nation itself: “If Texas goes, then we’re done.” It will be the end of authentic America.

      Historical Note

      In 1836, American colonists conducted a war to secure the territory Mexico was incapable of defending, opening its vast expanses of cotton land and prairies to slave-holding American settlers. This was necessary because the Mexican government had outlawed slavery, upsetting the plans of pioneering Americans intent on conquering the West. 

      Free of Mexican domination, the victors of the 1836 war created a political entity they called the Republic of Texas, even though the territory was still legally attached to Mexico. In 1845, the United States government unilaterally proposed to annex Texas as a state. The Texans agreed. This immediately provoked a war with Mexico, in which the US eventually prevailed, permitting, in 1848, not just the annexation of Texas but also of the territories to the west, including California.

      Thanks to a messy war that both former President John Quincy Adams and future President Abraham Lincoln opposed, calling it “unjust,” the culture of the Lone Star Republic was thus preserved. Twelve years later, Texas joined the Confederacy in seceding from the union during the Civil War. Had Adams and Lincoln had their way against President Polk, Texas might have remained an independent republic or even been returned to Mexican jurisdiction. But given the pressure of Manifest Destiny requiring the enterprising Americans to colonize a continent, history moved in a different direction.

      As the largest state of the union, with its memory of having been an independent republic between 1836 and 1845, Texas has always held a special status in US culture. It is the state that has most affirmatively preserved the mythology of the American cowboy. That explains why Tucker Carlson believes it is so crucial for Texas to preserve a culture that began with a belief in slavery and continued with faith in guns and oil.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      When Bad Customers Love Your Brand

      by

      A curious situation concerning Donald Trump’s beloved Proud Boys highlights several novel trends in US culture. A clothing supplier has expressed its consternation because of the public behavior by some of its paying customers. The story demonstrates how the quintessentially American science of branding has reached a new level of sophistication.

      In an article with the title, “LGBT-owned kilt maker denounces kilt-clad Proud Boys,” the BBC reports the disgust of a Virginia kilt company with the fact “that their yellow kilts were worn by the far-right Proud Boys.” Most people would be surprised to learn that there are companies producing kilts in Virginia, but globalization and identity politics have produced all kinds of fascinating examples of what some might indignantly call cultural appropriation. So far, the Scots have not reacted to this incident, possibly because the American idea of cultural appropriation hasn’t yet penetrated their psyches.

      Britain’s Commitment to Retaining the Spoils of History

      READ MORE

      Allister Greenbrier, the owner of Verillas, proudly claims that his kilt company is “LGBTQ owned.” It has obviously become important to establish the sexual preferences of the owners of American enterprises. Greenbrier doesn’t require that his customers be LGBTQ, but he objects to the idea that paying customers might wear items from his collection in public while displaying views contrary to the values of his brand. 

      The BBC article explains an important feature of contemporary US culture that may not be evident to anyone not immersed in the culture, including the BBC’s British audience: “Extremist groups in the US often adopt or appropriate items of clothing as quasi-uniforms that indicate their allegiance and make them recognisable to others.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Quasi-uniforms:

      Articles of clothing that, when worn by more than one person at a public event, identify the wearers as belonging to a particular cultural or ideological grouping, thereby creating the impression that the article has become the group’s, and not the manufacturer’s, brand.

      Contextual Note

      For ages, the proverb existed in the English language that clothes don’t make the man. Apart from the fact that if anyone were to cite the proverb today, they would be obliged to make it gender-neutral, the idea behind the proverb appears to have disappeared and been replaced by its opposite. Today, clothes identify. If, in former times, the choice of apparel demonstrated class origins, in our evolved post-sexist society, a person wears the clothes (and body art) that advertise that individual’s social identity.

      The owner of Verillas complained when he realized the Proud Boys were all wearing exactly the same kilts. The fact that it was the same kilt made it a quasi-uniform: “I was appalled, angry and frustrated because they are the opposite of everything our brand stands for.” Had each Proud Boy been wearing a different style kilt, Greenbrier probably would have thought more highly of them, respecting each individual as someone who displayed his personal “values.” It became an existential problem for Greenbrier when the entire group wore the same kilt. In the age of conspiracy theories, people might suspect collusion.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The reigning ideology is built on a basic premise of the consumer society, that what an individual does is meant to be an expression of personality and individuality. What a group does expresses allegiance to a worldview. 

      The borderline between a personal statement and wearing a uniform has become so vague that we can now categorize clothes as belonging to one of three categories: personal style, uniform (imposed by an institution) or quasi-uniform (adopted by members with shared identity). Clothing has always sent messages about social status, but now it has become an active vector of meaning in personal strategies of advertising. Behind the idea of quasi-uniform lies the conviction that all people belong to separate and possibly multiple categories of identity, which they are required to display in public. Whether it’s a kilt, a medieval tunic or tattoos, people increasingly feel impelled to wear their brands.

      Like everything else in US culture, at some point, this cultural distinction becomes not just a political or ideological problem, but also an economic one. Greenbrier explains: “I can’t control who buys my product, but if they’re buying our product, they’re putting their money towards a good cause and I think they won’t be too happy when they find out they accidentally bought from a company that’s really fighting for the opposite of what they believe in.” Spending and the way one spends have become central to defining one’s relationships with others.

      Historical Note

      When, at the beginning of the 16th century, Renaissance princes and their courtiers rivaled amongst themselves to put on display their most expensive and sophisticated finery, England’s Lord Chancellor and humanist philosopher Thomas More offered his critique of the role of fashion in his famous work, “Utopia”: “Throughout the island they wear the same sort of clothes without any other distinction except what is necessary to distinguish the two sexes and the married and unmarried. The fashion never alters, and as it is neither disagreeable nor uneasy, so it is suited to the climate, and calculated both for their summers and winters. Every family makes their own clothes.”

      More’s idea of dressing, not to impress, but to carry on one’s life as pragmatically as possible, was actually a sophisticated attempt to reconcile simplicity and the rejection of ostentation with freedom of personal expression. The latter would be the consequence of every family making its own clothes. Clothing would be neither a tool of self-advertising, as it was at the English court, nor a standardized uniform imposed by authority.

      For the following five centuries, the ruling classes and the commercial classes that emerged subsequently in Europe blissfully ignored More’s advice. French King Louis XIV’s court pushed extravagance to an unparalleled extreme, partly as a strategic move to ensure that other aristocrats would follow rather than try to lead, but also to put pressure on their budgets, forcing them to invest in fashion rather than military capacity that might serve to overthrow royal authority. The uprising of La Fronde had made Louis fearful of revolt.

      The bourgeois society that emerged in Europe in the 19th century discovered the value of permanently evolving fashions that stimulated demand over time from the same customers. Fashions themselves, combined with the new capacity for mass industrial production, induced entire populations to adopt conformist behaviors serving to affirm one’s status as a respectable consumer as well as advertise the emerging cultural notion of “being with it” or keeping up with the trends.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In America’s highly conformist consumer culture of the 1950s, the Beatniks initiated the counter-cultural movement and touted the theme of anti-conformism. But when most male beatniks grew long hair and beards, they were sometimes accused of being conformist themselves. With the hippies a decade later, the idea of personal expression based on chosen cultural signs — borrowed from cowboys, Native Americans, Asian religions and other exotic sources — came to dominate people’s ideas about the purpose of clothing as an expression of cultural values and identity.

      The controversy about the kilts demonstrates how deeply ingrained all these contradictory instincts have become. Verillas appears willing to sacrifice revenue to defend the integrity of the brand’s association with one set of social values. That paradoxically appears to contradict the spirit of capitalism, where companies offer the same goods to all comers as they seek to exploit the full potential of the marketplace. But perhaps another principle is at work here, the factor of earned media. A story that can both make the news and serve to define a company’s social or moral identity is far more valuable than paid advertising.

      The Verillas story includes an emotionally charged dramatic component: betrayal by one’s customers. But Verillas’ marketers undoubtedly realize that it serves very effectively to stir curiosity for its products from its targeted market segment. The company designed its image to appeal to proponents of the current vogue of identity culture associated with the left. Using an incident that highlights their opposition to a notorious right-wing movement is well worth sacrificing the income from the sale to bolster their brand identity. That kind of reasoning has become a quasi-uniform bit of marketing wisdom.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More