The Predator President

Published on Monday, February 27, 2017, by Common Dreams

The Predatory Presidency

Recent executive orders reveal the Trump White House as a ruthless predator set to prey upon the most vulnerable among us.

In the Galapagos Islands, the racer snakes get ready to launch. (Photo: BBC)

The season premiere of BBC America’s Planet Earth II includes remarkable footage from the desolate Galapagos Islands. In one striking scene, baby marine iguanas race across the sand, desperately trying to elude dozens of snakes eager for their next meal. Although such stark life-or-death struggles are difficult to watch, it helps to remember that they reflect nature’s dynamic balance.

Far more disturbing—and unnatural—are the Trump Administration’s similarly ruthless predator-like attacks on whatever groups it chooses as its prey. Adding to their repugnance, several of these assaults over the past month—through a series of executive orders—are inherently racist, seemingly propelled by the ugly 14-word credo of white nationalists everywhere: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Three White House orders stand out. First, there’s the determined pursuit of a Muslim travel ban, one that will prevent thousands of tempest-tossed and despairing refugees from entering the country. Second, there’s the heartless stalking of undocumented Hispanic immigrants, including the near indiscriminate roundup, detention, and deportation of law-abiding men, women, and children. And third, there’s the early blueprint for a “tough on crime” law enforcement crackdown, an onslaught that will inevitably and predominantly disrupt and besiege Black communities and activists.

These three groups, all non-white, have been selected as the initial targets for aggressive and oppressive government action (there will undoubtedly be others). To be sure, this isn’t entirely new. As Langston Hughes wrote 80 years ago, “America never was America to me.” But along with Trump himself, influential White House strategists Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller of the “alt-right” and new Attorney General Jeff Sessions have especially troubling histories of outright hostility and scornful indifference toward those who don’t share their skin color.

We’ve also seen that predators in the wild aren’t the only ones to use trickery, deception, and stealth as complements to brute force. Disguising the real impetus behind these executive orders, the Trump White House turns to sky-is-falling psychological mind games, warning us that these steps are necessary to protect the public from dire threats. The Islamophobia-nurturing Muslim travel ban is deceitfully presented as an essential counter-terrorism measure. ICE raids are defended with the fiction that millions of Hispanic immigrants are “bad hombres” and the rest are a drain on limited public resources. And repressive steps against African Americans are justified through bogus tales of a nationwide crime wave and “carnage in our inner cities.”

 

The purpose of these appeals is simple: to short-circuit the public’s critical reasoning; overwhelm us with emotions of fear and dread; and thereby garner either our active support or acquiescence. Once a crisis environment is created, once we begin to catastrophize and imagine the worst possible outcomes, then even the most extreme measures can begin to seem prudent. This is proven snake oil that’s stood the test of time. Recall that Nazi propagandist Herman Goering acknowledged as much when, during the Nuremberg trials after World War II, he explained:

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

But once we recognize these manipulative psychological ploys for what they are, the path forward becomes increasingly clear. First, whenever possible, we must expose and condemn the racist falsehoods of the President and his cronies. Second, we should counter and undermine the constant fearmongering they use to advance their agenda of intolerance. And third, we need to do whatever we can to help protect the individuals, families, and communities most immediately at risk of ambush and assault.

This may sound like a daunting challenge. Fortunately, however, the mass protests and daily acts of civil resistance throughout the country over the past several weeks have already demonstrated our resolve. They’ve also revealed our capacity to expand our “circle of moral concern,” so that it extends well beyond those we hold most dear or consider most similar to us.

In nature, potential prey instinctually use a wide range of strategies to ward off attacks—from camouflage to traveling in groups to alarm signals to communal defense based on strength in numbers—and they rarely succumb without a fight. With the merciless predators from the White House now on the prowl, surely we must be prepared to do the same.

Roy Eidelson

Roy Eidelson is a psychologist and an associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. He can be contacted at reidelson [ at] eidelsonconsulting [dot] com.

Are YOU guilty of a war crime?

To put the question differently: Do you pay taxes?

If you do, you may be committing a war crime.

Demonstration against war taxes.
Demonstration against war taxes. Photo by Joe Mabel, used under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. From Wikimedia Commons.

Tax Rebellion, a group active in the United Kingdom, argues that “Under the international laws of war, it is a criminal offense to pay tax to a Government which is waging illegal war.”

The group goes on to argue that the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are all illegal, violating the Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 1928 (also known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and the United Nations Charter.

They quote the judges from the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II:

“War is essentially an evil thing.  Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.  To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The United States government is involved in acts of aggression around the world, with most of these kept successfully out of the awareness of ordinary citizens.

Iin the United States, one group that is devoted to educating the public concerning financial and human costs of aggression and promoting the use of tax money for peace, not war, is the Peace Economy Project. Visit their site and learn all kinds of things you probably didn’t know—including the “wide range of operations in Africa, including airstrikes targeting suspected militants,  and night raids aimed at kidnapping terror suspects…”

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Humanitarian intervention and war (Just war, Part 2)

[Editor’s note: This is the second in the series on just war by Dr. Michael Corgan.]

The anguish for leaders of countries is never about right versus wrong. It’s usually about bad versus worse or right versus right. Nowhere is this anguish more sharply drawn than in the tension between legal war and just war as defined by just war theory.

To set the simplest case first, the current legal restrictions on the use of war are essentially the United Nations Charter, which all states have signed, and the attendant treaties and conventions that attempt to codify restraints on armed aggression.

Defendants at Nuremberg Trials
Nuremberg Trials: Defendants in their dock, circa 1945-1946. (National Archives photo in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

Basically, the only legal recourse to war is self-defense against aggression. The one addition is that a state may, if requested, come to the defense of another state that cannot defend itself against aggression.

The famous Nuremberg Trials following WWII brought the world’s attention to the issue of expanding the criteria for war beyond legally permitted war. Up to that point, international law had been guided by laws that had been agreed to and written down.

But what law had the Nazis in the dock at Nuremberg violated? Certainly no law of the Third Reich had stood in their murderous way. But just as clearly, “crimes against humanity” had been committed, as all civilized nations agreed, even if there were no legal protocols for addressing such crimes.

Enter the idea of “natural law” and the elaboration of just war doctrine, which rejected the prevailing assumption that recognized every state as sovereign and as inviolable for what it did within its own borders.

The new idea of humanitarian intervention as a justification for war was first called into play when NATO took military action in Kosovo in 1999. Was this a legal use of war? Not according to current interpretations of the treaties almost all nations had signed. Was it a just war? If the Nuremberg principles were valid, then it seems it was just, at least from the standpoint of having a just cause.

We will return to this dilemma later but subsequent just war posts will first look at the other five criteria for just war and the conundrums they raise.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University

Displacement of responsibility (Moral disengagement, part 5)

The fourth mechanism of moral disengagement described by Albert Bandura is displacement or diffusion of responsibility.

Man with crossed arms, fingers pointing at others ("don't blame me")
Photo by Achim Hering (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. From Wikimedia Commons)

Displacement of responsibility refers to claims that, for example, you are not being immoral when committing an atrocity while “just following orders.” Such claims dominated the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, which are the basis of current international law, “only following orders” has explicitly been identified as an unacceptable defense.  Nevertheless, it continues to appear in military contexts and probably led to the reducing of Lt. William Calley’s sentence for the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

More recently, in preparing the nation to accept his plan to invade Iraq, President George W. Bush declared: “Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination…. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act.”

In other words, it is not our fault that we are going to war; they made us do it.

After the fall of Iraq, when informed about the rioting and looting going on, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous remark, “Stuff happens,” another way of avoiding responsibility for the chaos.

It is easy to find online many quotes from U.S. leaders concerning the war in Iraq. Take a look at them and see how many examples you can find of displacement or avoidance of responsibility and the other mechanisms of moral disengagement we have been discussing.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.