This week USA Today published an opinion by the Heritage Foundation's John Malcolm supporting the presidential authority behind Executive Order 13769 ("Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States"), the so-called "travel ban." President Trump may have the authority, but Malcolm's argument in support is flawed. He writes, "Presidential authority to protect our homeland should not be second-guessed by courts based on some hidden intent divined from tweets and statements made by surrogates in the heat of a presidential campaign." First, Malcolm's attempt to attribute to surrogates Trump's Muslim ban campaign rhetoric is wrong. In December 2015, during the campaign, candidate Trump said at a rally, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” Second, and worse still, Malcolm tries to nullify the intent behind campaign promises. Of course candidates make false promises, but we still have to pretend the promises are true.
Notes:
- At issue is the scope of presidential power over the border. The Supreme Court has allowed parts of President Trump's travel ban to go into effect and will hear oral arguments on the case this fall.
- The "he did not mean it" argument was once part of the legal defense.
- Every previous President made an empty promise.
Source: "Travel ban is president's authority," USA Today, July 5, 2017
In August 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump said the following at a campaign rally:
Hillary wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, there's nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people--maybe there is. I don't know.
Many people accused Trump of implying that "Second Amendment people" could react with violence if Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party candidate, won the election. Clinton acknowledged and condemned the allegedly veiled threat, using the phrase "words matter." (Trump, of course, denied he was making any allusion to violence; he claimed he was referring to the National Rifle Association's considerable lobbying power.)
In August Trump accused President Barack Obama of being the founder of ISIS. These words drew criticism because they were, interpreted literally, untrue. Trump later said that if Obama had not mishandled foreign policy in the Middle East, then ISIS would not exist. So, for Trump, calling Obama the founder of ISIS is an incendiary way of saying the President, because he withdrew American forces and left a vacuum in the region, bears responsibility for the terrorist group's genesis.
In the second example, the problem seems to be that others might only hear what Trump said and would not infer any meaning beyond his words. In the first example, the problem seems to be that the language Trump used was too open to interpretation. What mattered was the words he did not use but others possibly could hear.
In one example, words matter because people take Trump literally. In the other, words matter because people might not take Trump literally enough.
Notes:
-
This post is sophistry.
- The phrase "words matter" seems to be popping up a lot lately. Is it?
- The bit about Hillary wanting to abolish the Second Amendment drew no criticism even though that statement, interpreted literally, is also untrue.
- Explore how the phrase "words matter" relates to the concept of "political correctness."
- Explore the example of using the term "illegal" versus "undocumented immigrant" when discussing immigration.
In January 2016, US presidential candidate Donald Trump famously boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue (a major thoroughfare in Manhattan, New York City) and not lose any voters. Whatever one thinks of his phrasing, the realization he was expressing was powerful: he was a candidate who could take chances. His detractors should view Donald Trump as a missed opportunity rather than a political black swan.
St. George and the Godfather unleashes Norman Mailer's critical mind on the characters participating in the 1972 Democratic and Republican National Conventions. That year, the Democrats nominated South Dakota Senator George McGovern, and the Republicans took President Richard M. Nixon.
Mailer describes a stiflingly boring political season, especially when compared to the Presidential races of the previous decade. He indulges his moods in this tract, veering from righteously indignant to contemplative, and all the while he keeps on his mind the ongoing, escalated bombings in South Asia. Mailer is an American original whose complicated, unconventional views can't be duplicated, even though the problems of politics and culture he describes repeat themselves over and over.
New Republican candidate John Huntsman received a warm welcome from media this week. According to the coverage, he's the nice handsome wealthy unassuming centrist whose campaign has begun so modestly you just have to believe in him. Matt Bai, political chief at The New York Times, writes the following:
If the field stayed wide open, the 51-year-old Huntsman—with his silver hair and his prized Harley and his mastery of Mandarin Chinese, with his record as a tax-cutting governor and his vast family fortune—would be an intriguing prospect ...
On television, Huntsman radiates strength, with his conventional good looks and easy demeanor, but in person he sometimes has a lesser presence. Average in height and build and self-effacing in a Jimmy Stewart kind of way, he’ll slouch a bit and bow his head, holding a microphone prayerfully with both hands, until it almost seems as if he is receding in front of you. He comes across as genuine and unpretentious, without a hint of entitlement—the kind of guy you’d be glad to run into at your kid’s soccer game.
The Christian Science Monitor offers a list of 10 things to know about Huntsman that reads more like a PR piece than journalism. Their list includes the following:
The relatively moderate Huntsman, whose good looks and polish position him as the GOP’s Obama, may be more electable than most of his more partisan contenders. He’s also a strategic politician who sees an opening in a weak field ...
“Jon Huntsman has an attractive combination of style and substance,” says Professor Chambless. Indeed, the articulate diplomat, who inspires adjectives generally associated with a Hollywood sensation–tall, lean, photogenic, charismatic–appears to be the Republican best poised to challenge Obama on the style front.
And he’s no laggard in the substance department, either. He has held two diplomatic posts, one in the economic powerhouse of China, and he's twice been elected governor– he left office early in his second term for the China post–of one of the reddest states in the union, Utah.
His business success rounds out Huntsman’s impressive résumé. And as a moderate, the ex-governor has a shot at capturing the critical independent vote. Given all that, it’s no wonder Time magazine called him “the Republican Democrats fear most,” and Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, once said the prospect of facing Huntsman in 2012 made him a “wee bit queasy.”
NPR demonstrated their enthusiasm by devoting several stories to Huntsman. Will Rick Perry get this kind of welcome? Maybe this much and more.
