SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
totalitarianism
Just Do It, PBS: Carry the January 6 Insurrection Hearings in Prime Time
Throw away the regular nighttime schedule and let every American see the truth.
Jul 27, 2021
There's an argument to be made that President Richard Nixon's downfall in 1974 wasn't only because his illegal behavior was called out by intrepid journalists and prosecuted by Congress and the Supreme Court. Another important factor was the role of public broadcasting.
PBS should be performing a similar national service right now. As the gavel dropped Tuesday morning, members of the House of Representatives are just beginning their investigation of the January 6 insurrection. As their inquiry continues, public TV should make available those hearings that are open and public to as wide a percentage of the American population as possible. Nothing less than the fate of democracy may be at stake.
By not giving this story the fullest attention it deserves, the Public Broadcasting Service unintentionally may be serving the partisan interests of the extremist wing of the Republican Party.
In 1973, PBS made the crucial decision to carry the hearings of the Senate's Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities--popularly known as the Watergate committee--twice every day. Like the commercial networks, PBS carried the testimony live, as it was happening. But what set public TV apart was that they repeated each day's proceedings in prime time every night--putting aside the usual schedule and giving working Americans with 9-to-5 jobs a chance to sit back and see for themselves how the president had abused democracy in the name of power and personal privilege.
The impact was enormous and there was a certain fearful symmetry at play--like every GOP White House since, Nixon and his gang had done their damnedest to destroy public broadcasting by trying to zero out funding to public television and radio. Public TV correspondent Sander Vanocur was among those on the infamous Nixon enemies list.
As I've have written before, with my friend and colleague Bill Moyers, the PBS coverage, produced by NPACT, the National Public Affairs Center for Television, was a seminal moment for public TV--the nighttime repeats vastly increasing its average audience and triggering a boom in fundraising for the service. It made PBS a household name; to this day, legislators tend to ignore presidential attempts to scrap its federal allotment, not wishing to offend voters whose kids adore Big Bird and Daniel Tiger, nor willing to eliminate the countrywide platform provided congressional members by National Public Radio and such nightly programming as the superb PBS NewsHour.
The current January 6 probe is not the first time I (with Moyers) have suggested that PBS take a moral stance on behalf of the republic and show their commitment to democracy by dropping everything in prime time and carry a rebroadcast of crucial congressional hearings. In November 2019, we appealed to the executives in charge at public television to act as they had during Watergate and air in primetime a repeat broadcast of each day's testimony before the House impeachment inquiry, testimony that led to the first of Donald Trump's two impeachments. We urged that those hearings be repeated on our nation's PBS stations at night, in addition to live broadcasts during the day. We believed this so strongly we even took out a full-page ad in a Friday edition of The New York Times.
Instead, it was decided to air the repeat telecast on PBS World, a low audience, digital subchannel normally reserved for repeats of documentaries and other public affairs programs. Difficult to find for many; impossible to find, in fact, if you are one of the millions of Americans who still only watch TV via an antenna that picks up broadcast signals.
Despite the failure of our initial request in 2019, we were told by people in the know that we had some real impact on public television policy regarding coverage of the hearings. Now I'm suggesting it again. Public television executives should not only air live these first hearings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, they also should air a repeat every night of the hearings on the nation's PBS stations--in a broadcast format that every single American can see.
They may say, as they did in 2019, that this would be disruptive to the broadcast schedules of public stations across the nation, and that there plenty of other ways via cable, satellite and online that those who want to can view the hearings at any time they want.
Yes, it will preempt the regular schedule but it's not just about a programing decision. You would be making a statement about a moment of national peril unlike anything since the Civil War. The need to get to the bottom of the motives and plans for the January 6 assault is imperative if we are to remain a civil society of laws and truth. Let the inquiry be an open book.
Questions abound: Committee member Stephanie Murphy asked, "The people who showed up on January--how were they motivated? How did they pay for their travel and their equipment? How are they organized? Are they still driven to trying to change political outcomes through political violence?
... A lot of authoritarian countries were democracies before the autocrat took over. When you work on these issues overseas, one commonality between successful coups is that there was inevitably an unsuccessful coup first.
By not giving this story the fullest attention it deserves, the Public Broadcasting Service unintentionally may be serving the partisan interests of the extremist wing of the Republican Party, which would have the fatal events around and leading up to January 6 thrown down the memory hole. At a time when PBS and its member stations across the country pride themselves as one of the few remaining independent voices for accurate and thorough reporting, public television's reputation for trust, reliability and integrity must be upheld, not playing into the hands of those who would see democracy die with one razor sharp lie after another; those who would rather misinform and deceive America's citizens.
In a 1966 letter to the first Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, the essayist EB White described his vision of the many things public television could be if it realized its full potential. "It should be our Lyceum, our Chautauqua, our Minsky's, and our Camelot," he wrote. "It should restate and clarify the social dilemma and the political pickle. Once in a while it does, and you get a quick glimpse of its potential."
It used to be that public broadcasters had EB White's words emblazoned into their consciences as resolutely as the Pledge of Allegiance. Our country has never been in a political pickle like the one we're in now. Even though Donald Trump and his party no longer hold the presidency--for the moment--the whisper of the ax can be heard; it's not far away at all. Despite his six months out of office, you hear it in the frenzy of Trump's rallies; his rambling, rhetorical bluster; the constant lies and the overwhelming self-aggrandizement and addiction to the perks of power with none of the responsibilities.
Today's public television can help in the fight against authoritarianism and tyranny--or it can punt and continue to schedule doo-wop concerts, series where experts assess the monetary value of Aunt Margaret's antique vase or bouncy self-help gurus who reassure us that good fortune and good health are just around the corner. Most of these are not necessarily unworthy, and yes, the Newhour is providing live coverage of the hearings. There are many series of great interest and merit, some of which have been looking into the Capitol riot. But these are difficult times and public broadcasters must rise to the challenge. Start airing the January 6 inquiry in prime time; speak up for your sake and ours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Differences Between Fascism and Trump(ism)
Trump’s policies were brutally neoliberal, racist, nativist, authoritarian, narcissistic -- but fascist?
Jul 10, 2021
Donald Trump will go down in history as the president responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans due to the criminal negligence in his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and for pushing the world closer to a precipice with his denialism of our climate crisis; yet, he may ultimately be best remembered for having decidedly transform American political culture with the theatricality of his proto-fascist politics.
Trump emerged on the political scene at a time of increasing contradictions in the American system of economic organization and distribution, with the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, and growing divisions within society at large over race, ethnicity, and culture. While he had no previous political experience, his instincts told him that the route to power in a highly divided society was to double down on those divisions--a tactic that had been employed quite successfully in the past by various extreme political figures all over the world, including the likes of Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolph Hitler in Germany, respectively.
Indeed, Trump's stratagem of tapping into a huge reservoir of racism and nativism through the use of white identity politics and exploiting public discontent associated with America's economic decline through a standard repertoire of ultranationalist rants and transparent scapegoatism was key to his rise in power. Moreover, rather than aiming to unify a divided country while holding the nation's highest office, he continued to act more like the leader of a political party bent on cementing the ideological and cultural divisions in American society, all while implementing economic policies that would lead to further inequality and the expansion of the power of the plutocracy.
Trump's transformation of American political culture consisted in the unleashing of dangerous forces--arch-enemies of the open and diverse society--that posed an internal threat to liberal democracy. His refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, and subsequent attempts by him and his allies to overturn the election, was indeed the culmination of four years of proto-fascist political rhetoric and authoritarian grandstanding.
Subsequently, Trump's politics has led many to conclude that the alleged billionaire entrepreneur is a fascist and that the United States was actually on the verge of becoming a fascist country during his four-year tenure in power. It is a belief that continues to hold sway over the minds of many progressives, especially since the GOP is officially now Trump's party and Republicans are fighting as dirty as they can to return to power, with or without Trump at the helm.
However, as I will argue below, and without any intention of downplaying the dangers that Trump and Trumpism represent for a dysfunctional democracy like the one that prevails in the United States, this is a belief based on a misunderstanding of fascism both as a movement and as a regime. Fascism has specific politico-economic properties, even though there are some subtle differences between Italian fascism, German Nazism, and Spanish Francoism, and is defined by a unique philosophical worldview regarding the relationship between state and individual. Fascism is an extreme right-wing authoritarian form of government, but not all authoritarian governments qualify as fascist, and the term in connection with Trump is quite misleading. In fact, hardly any expert on fascism thinks that what Trump practiced fits with the political ideology behind fascism.
Trump and the political movement he created share certain traits with fascism, such as reliance on hate, fear, and conspiracy theories.
The differences between fascism and Trump(ism) are quite striking. Trump and the political movement that he created do share certain traits with fascism, such as reliance on hate, fear, and conspiracy theories, along with the rejection of reason, to deepen social divisions and to create a sense of an imminent collapse as part of a strategy whose aim is to change the political environment by bringing about a change in the existing balance of social forces. But these are tactics that have been widely used by authoritarian leaders and extreme populist movements throughout the modern era of politics. Moreover, while the characterizations of Trump as an authoritarian figure with an utterly narcissistic personality or as a dangerous con artist who manipulates people to believe in lies and "alternative facts" are totally, unmistakably true, the orange maniac is not an ideologue by any stretch of the imagination; instead, he will gladly say whatever he feels is necessary to please his base.
What is fascism?
First, fascism represents one form of "exceptional capitalist state," as the Marxist political sociologist Nicos Poulantzas had argued, and reflects the breakdown of social order as a result of a severe capitalist crisis and the ensuing confrontation between different classes and ideological groups for political hegemony.
Fascism emerged in Europe during the interwar years (1919-1939) and was first established in Italy under Benito Mussolini (1922-1945) and then in Germany under Adolph Hitler (1933-1945). Italian fascism and German National Socialism represent "classical fascism" and rest on similar belief systems and regime properties, with one possible exception: the "biological" state did not figure as prominently in Italian fascism as it did under the Third Reich.
Fascism relies on paramilitary squads to spread terror and pursues relentless raids against socialists, communists, and other arch-enemies of fascism. This was typical of the role of Mussolini's paramilitary squads, known as the "blackshirts," whose activities covered all regions of the country, including the peninsula and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, and constituted an integral component of the fascism's march to power and the establishment of a dictatorship.
The Nazi rise to power followed a similar path. In 1921, Hitler formed the paramilitary organization Sturm Abteilung (SA), more commonly known as the "brownshirts." The purpose of the "Sturm Unit" was none other than to intimidate political opponents. In 1925, Hitler established a sub-division of the SA, the Schutzstaffel (German for "Protective Echelon"), otherwise known as the SS, which served as Hitler's personal bodyguards. The SS, Hitler's "master race," would eventually see its role and size expanded dramatically after 1929 when Heinrich Himmler was put in charge. By the start of World War II, the SS consisted of more than 250,000 members that had a hand on virtually all major Nazi activities, including running concentration camps.
Unless I am mistaken, there were no signs of "blackshirts" or "brownshirts" engaging in thuggish vigilantism before Trump's rise to power.
Fascist political ideology is also unmistakably unique. Fascism strips away individual rights and glorifies the state. The organic state is typified by the fascist regime, which assigns the state complete control over every aspect of national life. For Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher and political theorist of Italian fascism, "state and individual are one," while "the authority of the state is not subject to negotiation, or compromise, or to divide its terrain with other moral or religious principles that might interfere in consciousness."
Fascism bans political opposition, ends constitutional rule, enforces censorship, and imprisons political opponents.
Indeed, as Benito Mussolini's own formulation of fascism has it, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
It is worth quoting at length the fascist conception of the state, as articulated once again by Mussolini himself:
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts.
Totalitarianism and state terrorism are defining attributes of fascism. Trump's administration, horrific as it was, exhibited no such features.
Trump's economic policies were brutally neoliberal in origin and scope.
There are also striking differences between fascism and Trump(ism) when it comes to the economy.
Fascists do not oppose private property but believe in taming capitalism by forming a specific relationship between state and big business or monopoly capital, with the state having the upper hand. Mussolini identified the economics of fascism as "state capitalism." Fascism also intervenes in the overall workings of the economy through coordinated actions of some central planning board to attain a set of "fixed objectives," even if those actions tended at times to involve "dis-organic intervention," as Mussolini himself had once complained. Fascism also controls the monetary system, sets prices, and promotes large government projects and all sorts of public works as part of the pursuit of its alleged "full-employment" economy. Hitler's autobahn construction (though plans for the autobahn date to the 1920s and construction had actually begun before Hitler came to power) was undertaken under that pretext. Nonetheless, it was rearmament that helped the Nazis achieve economic recovery in the 1930s.
Trump's policies sought to enhance even further the power of the plutocracy in the United States.
Trump's economic policies, on the other hand, were brutally neoliberal in origin and scope. The war alone that his administration launched on regulations clearly testifies to Trump's commitment to free-market fundamentalism. As far as his opposition to "free trade" is concerned, it was initiated by his belief that other countries were bending the rules at the expense of the United States, not because he was in principle against the idea of "free trade."
Trump's policies sought to enhance even further the power of the plutocracy in the United States. And he accomplished this through the pursuit of extreme neoliberal policies, not through a corporatist model. On the other hand, to keep his fanatical base loyal, he employed a standard repertoire of proto-fascist rhetoric and challenged as far as he could the foundations of liberal democracy, which, according to his followers, had set rules that cater to the whims of the "detestable elite."
In this manner, Trump was not alone. Virtually all authoritarian political figures out there today (Orban in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey, Bolsonaro in Brazil, to name just a few) use similar tactics, exploit the vulnerabilities in the political culture in which they operate and exhibit disdain for the rule of law. Do they all, with Trump together, belong to the fascist camp? Not unless the aim is to reduce fascism to a meaningless political ideology and forget the sickening atrocities committed by fascist regimes in the most murderous century in recorded history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Use of Religion Follows Playbook of Authoritarian-leaning Leaders the World Over
Where Trump succeeds is in presenting himself as a Christian nationalist, much as Putin and Modi style themselves as the stout defenders of their countries’ dominant religions.
Jun 05, 2020
It was a striking moment: Donald Trump, Bible in hand, posing for photos in an apparent moment of political theater made possible by the dispersal of protesters through the use of tear gas.
The president's visit to St. John's Episcopal Church, known as "the Church of the Presidents," came immediately after giving a Rose Garden speech framing himself as "your president of law and order" and threatening to send federal troops to "restore security and safety in America." The next day, Trump made another high-profile visit to a place of worship, this time Washington's St. John Paul II National Shrine.
Coming at a time of social turbulence, critics accused Trump of following authoritarian-leaning world leaders by sidling up to religion to reinforce an image as a strongman defending a particular brand of tradition. Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington Mariann Budde said as much, commenting that Trump used the Bible at St. John's "as if it were a prop or an extension of his military and authoritarian position."
As a scholar who has researched the interaction of politics and faith for decades, I know how potent religion can be as a political tool.
A powerful tool
Religion creates meaning in our lives by articulating values about how we relate to one another. But just as it can unite us, religion can also be a source of division - used to "other" people who are not of the faith and don't share the same traditions and rituals.
When enough people perceive - or can be convinced - that traditional elements of the social fabric are at risk, religious signaling through the use of symbols and images can help would-be authoritarians cement their power. They present themselves as protectors of the faith and foes of any outsider who threatens tradition.
In Russia, this phenomenon is seen in President Vladimir Putin's forging of a strategic alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church. For his part, Putin presents himself not just as a commanding leader, but also as a devoutly religious Russian.
When he appears shirtless, for example, the large cross he wears around his neck is always visible. Meanwhile, the Church promotes traditional moral values and maintains a distance from the rest of the worldwide Orthodox Christian community, thereby separating the "truly Russian" from the outsider. In their most recent collaboration, Putin and the Church proposed amendments to the Russian constitution that would enshrine Russians' faith in God, define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and, tellingly, proclaim "the great achievement of the [Russian] people in defense of the Fatherland." These changes, all of which are intended to reinforce Putin's base of support, would be jarringly nationalistic additions to the constitution.
Putin benefits from this insider-outsider dynamic in advancing his goal of restoring Russia to his vision of its past territorial glory. In justifying the Russian incursion into Crimea, Putin argued that the region had "sacral importance for Russia, like the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for the followers of Islam and Judaism." Defending and expanding Russian territory is a much easier sell if it is framed as the defense of the holy.
Religious imagery
We see a similar dynamic in India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi's grip on power relies in large part on his embrace of a version of Hindu nationalism that elevates Hindus as "truly Indian" insiders and singles out Muslims as outsiders.
Like Putin, Modi wraps himself in religious imagery. He makes high-profile visits to remote Hindu temples while electioneering and never wears green because of its association with Islam.
Modi's Hindu nationalism cements his popularity among devout Hindus and builds public support for anti-Muslim policies, such as stripping the only majority-Muslim state in India of its autonomy and enacting a controversial new law preventing Muslim migrants from attaining Indian citizenship.
Trump as savior
Trump has stumbled in attempts to portray himself as personally devout, declining to name a favorite passage from the Bible and stating that he has never sought forgiveness from God for his sins.
Nevertheless, public opinion polls have consistently shown that white Christians comprise the core of Trump's base, although there are recent signs of a dip even among this key group.
And while it is important to note that many white Christians do not support Trump, 29% of evangelicals go so far as to say they believe he is anointed by God.
Where Trump succeeds is in presenting himself as a Christian nationalist, much as Putin and Modi style themselves as the stout defenders of their countries' dominant religions.
One way Trump achieves this end is by making statements such as this one on the campaign trail earlier this year: "We're going to win another monumental victory for faith and family, God and country, flag and freedom."
In their new book "Taking America Back for God," sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry contend that many of Trump's white Christian supporters see him as their long-awaited savior - not just the protector of traditional religion, but also the defender of a bygone way of life.
In that imagined past, white men ruled the roost, families went to church every Sunday and outsiders knew their place. A deep-rooted desire for a return to that past may have been why Trump's Make America Great Again slogan has proved so potent. As Yale scholar Philip Gorski has argued, that phrase can be interpreted to mean "making white Christianity culturally dominant again."
As such, we should not be surprised that in the current moment of crisis Trump is attempting to use religion to reinforce differences between his supporters and his opponents. Like Putin, he is posing as the defender of a particular version of a glorious past. And echoing Modi, he is doing this by building support through the denigration of the outsider.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular