Archive: Opinions

When I was a kid I remember a dinner conversation at which my father worried that conditions in America could become like those in Germany that led to the Nazis and World War II.  He said that we should think about moving if it came to that, and casually mentioned Australia as a possibility for our new home.  Well, that didn't happen, and we didn't move.  Kind of a waste, really, as I think I could do a passable Aussie accent, mate!

But recent events like the encouragement of racism, and the use by the President of military for his own purposes... this seems eerily familiar and disturbing.  To be clear, the Insurrection Act of 1807 does allow presidents to deploy the military and National Guard troops to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion, and there are specific circumstances .  So it is allowed, and it's not new.  The disturbing part is the current president's definition of 'civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion'.

A dozen presidents have invoked it to date. Thomas Jefferson was the first to invoke it in 1808, to counter violations of the Embargo Act.  George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) used it to get the 1992 Los Angeles riots under control.  Lyndon Johnson used it the most -- four times to quell riots in Detroit, Washington DC, Baltimore, and Chicago.  John F. Kennedy used it three times to handle disorder caused by desegregation in Mississippi and Alabama.  It hasn't been a matter of conservative or liberal.  Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower both used it.

The US Military is generally not deployed on US soil unless state governors ask for the extra help.  So while the president could technically deploy troops without governors' permission, it generally isn't done.  George W. Bush and his administration were widely criticized for responding to Hurricane Katrina too slowly.  In the midst of confusion, inaction, and finger pointing Bush, probably wisely, waited for Governor Kathleen Blanco to request National Guard assistance,   Even still, the use of the National Guard was controversial, with critics complaining that federal troops are not allowed to enforce state laws, except that National Guard troops may do so only if they are under the command of the Governor.  So Bush asked the Governor to take command, which she declined to do.

What a mess.  But it does illustrate that even presidents have historically been cautious about how US military troops are deployed.  The current president encouraged governors to use federal troops to quell unrest in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, engendering much criticism, even though it is technically legal for him to do so -- he's allowed to just do it without state approval if he decides the situation in a state makes it impossible to enforce US laws, or when citizens' rights are threatened.

The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that Chicagoans are now worried about the threatened (and probably about to be realized) deployment of 150 federal agents to their city to assist with crime fighting.  The Mayor of Chicago opposes the idea, especially in the wake of Trumps sending of agents to Portland, Oregon against that mayor's clear objections.

“Keep your troops in your own buildings, or have them leave our city,” said Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Wheeler was among protesters who were tear-gassed in a protest of the deployment of federal agents to Portland.

Evidently the President has determined that circumstances in those cities are so out of control that they trigger his power to deploy the military against Americans.  Trump has mentioned other cities, as well, including New York City, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore.  I can't wait.  If Trump invades New York City Governor Cuomo will embark on an orgy of radio and television appearances he will use to excoriate the President.  Yesterday Cuomo announced that President Trump told him federal agents will not currently be sent to New York City.

Cuomo said, "The President said he would discuss the deployment of agents with the governor before making a decision. New York State will continue to closely monitor the federal government for any changes in policy."

Maybe.  The President has been consistantly inconsistant, frequently contradicting himself.  I'll believe it when I don't see it.  At least they're talking beforehand, for now.  They're not exactly buddies!

Closer to the White House, Trump used DC police and National Guard troops on June 1st to clear his path by force around the Lafayette Park area so he could have a photo opportunity in front of St. John's Episcopal Church.  Just about everyone including military and religious leaders condemned him for using the military for personal gain in the form of a political photo op.  Again it could be argued that whenever a president goes somewhere the area must be made secure.  But was this photo op, which made Trump look disingenuous, at best, really worth pitting government agents against peacefully (until the President came along) protesting American citizens?

And what's this about Trump refusing to commit to accepting the 2020 election results (if he loses, of course. Otherwise he seems fully committed to accepting them) and ensuring a peaceful transition of power?

It's not too hard to compare these things to circumstances in pre World War II Germany.  It's almost hard not to.

So, is it time to think about renaming our newspaper to 'The Melbourne Star Online', mate.  Crikey, if it looks like this country is going down the dunny (that's Australian for 'toilet') should we be hiking our knickers, donning our runners, grabbing a slab (carton of beer), and racking off?

v16i30