Mediaboss Marketing

By the end of the first month of President Trumps Administration we are in a better position to evaluate the policies and direction of the new President. An examination of foreign and domestic policy, particularly from a historical and comparative perspective will provide insights about whether America is heading for a catastrophe as the mass media claim or toward greater realism and rationality.

We will proceed by examining whether Trump pursues diplomacy over warfare. We will evaluate the Presidents efforts to reduce US foreign debt and trade burdens with Europe and Asia . We will follow with a discussion of his immigration and protectionist policies with Mexico . Finally we will touch on the prospects for democracy in the United States.

Foreign Policy

President Trumps meeting with the leaders of Japan , the United Kingdom and Canada were largely successful. The Abe-Trump meeting led to closer diplomatic ties and a promise that Japan would increase their investment in automobile manufacturing in the US . Trump may have improved trade relations by reducing the trade imbalances. Trump and Abe adopted a moderate position on the North Korean missile test in the Sea of Japan , rejecting a further military build-up as the liberal-neo-con media demanded.

US-UK meeting, in thepost-Brexitperiod, promised to increase trade.

Trump moved to improve relations with China , clearly backing the single China policy and proceeding to re-negotiate and re-balance trade relations.

The US backed the unanimous UN Security Council vote to condemn North Korea s missile launch. Trump did not consider it a military threat or rising to the level of additional sanctions.

Trumps policy of reconciliation with Russia in order to improve the war against Islamist terrorism has been stymied. Led by the witch-hunting left liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren, neo-conservative militarists and Democrats pronounced Russia as the primary threat to US national security!

The rabid, ceaseless mass media blitz forced the resignation of Trumps National Security Adviser, Ret. General Michael Flynn, on the basis of an 18thcentury law (the Logan Act) that prohibited private citizens from discussing policy with foreign leaders. This law has never been implemented. If it were enforced, hundreds of thousands of American citizens, most especially thebig-wigsamong the 51 Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, as well as the foreign affairs editors of all major and minor US media outlets and foreign policy academics would be on the chain-gangs with convicted drug dealers. Never embarrassed by absurdity or by trivializing tragedy, this recent Tempest in the Teapot has whipped up passionate calls by the media and Democratic Party operatives for a newNine-Eleven Style Investigationinto General Flynn talks with the Russians.

Trumps setback on his National Security Adviser Flynn has put the prospects for improved, less bellicose foreign affairs in danger. It heightens the risk for a nuclear confrontations and domestic repression. These dangers, including a domestic anti-Russian McCarthy-style purge of foreign policy realists, are exclusively the responsibility of the ultra-militarist Democratic Party-Neo-Conservative alliance. None of this addresses the serious domestic socioeconomic problems.

Rebalancing Foreign Spending and Trade

Trumps public commitment about rebalancing US relations with NATO, namely reducing the US share of funding, has already started. Currently only five NATO members meet the required contribution. Trumps insistence on Germany , Italy , Spain , Canada , France and 18 other members fulfilling their commitments would add over $100 billion to NATOs budget reducing US foreign imbalances.

Of course, it would be far better for all if NATO was disbanded and the various nations re-allocate these many hundreds of billions of dollars for social spending and domestic economic development.

Trump has announced a major effort to reduce US trade imbalances in Asia . Contrary to the claims, often made by foreign trade experts in the mass media, China is not the only, or even the largest, among the offenders in exploiting unbalanced trade with the US .

Chinas current account trade surplus is 5% of its GDP, while South Korea s is 8%, Taiwan s 15% and Singapore s is 19%. Trumps target is to reduce the US trade imbalances to $20 billion dollars with each country or 3% of GDP. Trumps quota of $100 billion dollars stands in marked contrast to the Asian Fives (Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore) current trade imbalance of $700 billion dollars in 2015, according to the International Monetary Fund.

In sum, Trump is moving to reduce external imbalances by 85% in order to increase domestic production and create jobs for US-based industries.

Trump and Latin America

Trumps Latin America policy is focused primarily on Mexico and to a much lesser degree on the rest of the continent.

The White Houses biggest move has been to scuttle Obamas Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, which favored multi-national corporations exploiting Chile , Peru and Mexico s work force, as well as attracting the neo-liberal regimes in Argentina and Uruguay . Trump inherits from President Obama numerous military bases in Colombia , Guantanamo , Cuba and Argentina. The Pentagon has continued Obamas cold war with Venezuela falsely accusing the Venezuelan Vice President of drug trafficking.

Trump has promised to alter US trade and immigration policy with Mexico . Despite the widespread opposition to Trumps immigration policy, he lags far behind Obamas massive expulsion of immigrants from Mexico and Central America . America s deportation champion was President Barack Obama, who expelled 2.2 million immigrants and their family membersin eight years, or approximately 275,000 a month. In his first month in office, President Trump has deported just one percent of Obamas monthly average.

President Trump promises to re-negotiate NAFTA, imposing a tax on imports and enticing US multinational corporations to return and invest in America .

There are numerous hidden advantages for Mexico if it responds to Trumps policies with its own reciprocal protectionist economic measures. Under NAFTA, 2 million Mexican farmers went into bankruptcy and billions of dollars have been spent importing (subsidized) rice, corn and other staples from the US . A Mexico First policy could open the door for a revival of Mexican agriculture for domestic consumption and export; this would also decrease out-migration of Mexican farm workers. Mexico could re-nationalize its oil industry and invest in domestic refineries gaining billions of dollars and reducing imports of refined petroleum products from the US . With an obligatory import-substitution policy, local manufacturing could increase the domestic market and employment. Jobs would increase in the formal economy and reduce the number of unemployed youth recruited by the drug cartels and other criminal gangs. By nationalizing the banks and controlling capital flows, Mexico could block the annual outflow of about $50 billion dollars of illicit funds. National-popular policies, via reciprocity, would strengthen the election of new leaders who could begin to purge the corrupt police, military and political leadership.

In sum, while the Trump policies may cause some short-term losses, it can lead to substantial medium and long-term advantages for the Mexican people and nation.

Democracy

President Trumps election has provoked a virulent authoritarian campaign threatening our democratic freedoms.

Highly coordinated and endless propaganda by all the major media and the two political parties have fabricated and distorted reports and encouraged elected representatives to savage Trumps foreign policy appointees, forcing resignations and reversals of policy. The forced resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn highlights the Democratic Partys pro-war agenda against nuclear-armed Russia . Liberal Senators, who once made grand speeches against Wall Street and the One Percent, now demand Trump reject working with Russian President Putin against the real threat of ISIS while supporting the neo-Nazis in Ukraine . Liberal icons openly push for sending more US warships in Asia to provoke China , while opposing Trumps policy of favorably re-negotiating trade deals with Beijing .

There are many hidden dangers and advantages in this partisan political warfare.

Trump has exposed the systemic lies and distortions of the mass media, confirming the distrust held by a majority of Americans for the corporate news media. The low opinion of the media, especially held by Americans in the economically devastated center of the country (those described by Hillary Clinton as the deplorables) is clearly matched by the medias deep disdain for this huge portion of the electorate. Indeed, the constant media chatter about how the evil Russians had hacked the US presidential elections giving the victory to Donald Trump, is more likely a dog whistle to mask their unwillingness to openly denounce the poor whites including workers and rural Americans who overwhelmingly voted for Trump. This class and regional element goes a long way to explain the constant hysteria over Trumps victory. There is widespread fury among the elites, intellectuals and bureaucrats over the fact that Clintons big basket of deplorablesrejected the system and rejected its coiffured and manicured media mouthpieces.

For the first time there is a political debate over freedom of speech at the highest levels of government. The same debate extends to the new Presidents challenge from the enormous, uncontrolled police state apparatus (FBI, NSA, CIA, Homeland Security, etc..), which expanded massively under Barack Obama.

Trumps trade and alliance policies have awakened the US Congress to debates over substantive issues rather than internal procedural quibbles. Even Trumps rhetorical policies have aroused mass demonstrations, some of which are bona fide, while others are bankrolled by billionaire supporters of the Democratic Party and its neo-liberal expansionist agenda, like the Grand Sugar Daddy of the Color Revolutions George Soros. It is a serious question whether this may provide an opening for genuine grass-roots democratic-socialist movements to organize and take advantage of the rift among the elite.

The bogus charges of treasonous communication with the Russian Ambassador against Trumps National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, while still a civilian, and the convoking of the Logan Act against civilians discussing foreign policy with foreign governments, opens up the possibility of investigating legislators, like Charles Schumer and several hundred others, for discussing US strategic policy positions with Israeli officials

Win or lose, the Trump Administration has opened a debate on the possibilities of peace with a nuclear superpower, a re-examination of the huge trade deficit and the necessity to stand-up for democracy against authoritarian threats from the so-called intelligence communityagainst an elected President.

Trump and the Class Struggle

The Trump socio-economic agenda has already set in motion powerful undercurrents of class conflict. The media and political class have focused on conflicts over immigration, gender issues, and relations with Russia , NATO and Israel as well as intra-party politics. These conflicts obscure deeper class antagonisms, which grow out of Trumps radical economic proposals.

President Trumps proposal to reduce the power of the federal regulatory and investigatory agencies, simplify and lower taxes, curtail spending on NATO, re-negotiate or scrap multilateral agreements and cut the budgets for research, health and education all seriously threaten the employment for millions of public sector workers and officials across the country. Many of the hundreds of thousands of protestors at the womens rallies and marches for immigration and education are public employees and their family members who are under economic threat. What appears on the surface to be protests over specific cultural, identity or human rights issues are manifestations of a deeper and more extensive struggle between public sector employees and the agenda of aprivatizingstate, which draws its class support from small business people attracted by lower taxes and less regulatory burdens, as well as private charter school officials and hospital administrators.

Trumps protectionist measures, including export subsidies, pit the domestic manufacturers against multi-billion dollar importers of cheap consumer goods.

Trumps proposals for deregulated oil, gas, timber, more agro-mineral exports and major infrastructure investments are supported by bossesandworkers in those sectors. This has provoked a sharp conflict with environmentalists, community-based workers and producers, indigenous peoples and their supporters.

Trumps initial effort to mobilize domestic class forces opposed to continued budget-draining overseas warfare and in support of market relations-based empire building has been defeated by the combined efforts of the military-industrial complex, the intelligence apparatus and their supporters in a liberal-neo-conservative-militarist political elite coalition and their mass supporters.

The evolving class struggle has deepened and threatens to tear apart the constitutional order in two directions: The conflict can lead to an institutional crisis and toward the forceful ouster of an elected president and the installation of a hybrid regime, which will preserve the most reactionary programs of both sides of the class conflict. Importers, investors and workers in extractive industries, supporters of privatized educations and healthcare, warmongers and members of the politicized security apparatus may take total control of the state.

On the other hand, if the class struggle can mobilize the public sector workers, workers in the commercial sector, the unemployed, the anti-war democrats and progressive IT entrepreneurs and employers dependent on skilled immigrants, as well as scientists and environmentalists into a massive movement willing to support a living wage and unify around common class interests, deep systemic change becomes possible. In the medium term, the unification of these class movements can lead to a progressive hybrid regime.

See more here:
President Trump: Diplomacy and Democracy in America - Center for Research on Globalization

George Washington published his Farewell Address in a Philadelphia newspaper to announce to his fellow citizens that he would step away from the presidency after two terms, demonstrating that power could be transferred peacefully in a democracy. His farewell also served as a warning of the dangers that threatened the fledgling democracy.

Washingtons Farewell Address soon became the countrys civic scripture, studied by every student across the nation. But by the latter half of the 19th century, the archaic style of the farewell could not compete with Abraham Lincolns shorter, optimistic and more quotable Gettysburg Address, which became the countrys best known civic discourse.

Today, the Farewell Address is receiving renewed interest as the country debates its identity whether we are a multicultural country welcoming the foreign born or a country feeling a loss of identity with an influx of too many immigrants and refugees. Its a debate between a vision of the nation as a melting pot and as a nation of Mayflower descendants.

In his farewell, Washington made the case for a national identity at a time when most citizens identified more closely with their states in the newly formed country. John Avlon in his new book on the Farewell Address describes six themes that continue to resonate in the country today: national unity, political moderation, fiscal discipline, virtue and religion, education and foreign policy.

We may think of our country today as deeply divided, but hyper-partisanship also marked the early days of the republic the divide between the North and South, industry and agriculture, Federalists and Republicans, and even in the presidents Cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Washington warned the nation that partisanship threatened the country, especially the menace of intolerant extremes and the danger posed by demagogues.

Washington envisioned the presidency as rising above the political fray to unite the country. He sought a government composed of a coalition of problem-solvers rather than of factions of self-interested partisans. While he understood that partisanship could not be eliminated in the republic, he urged its restraint through the separation of powers and an ever-watchful, informed citizenry.

Washington argued that the sacred ties that bind the states into a union serve as the very foundation of freedom and prosperity. He saw the possibility of unity in welcoming immigrants to the country, declaring in a letter to John Adams that by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, manners, and laws: in a word, [they] soon become one people.

Washington developed a religious pluralism, welcoming all religious faiths to create a country that sanctioned no bigotry. He instructed the supervisor of his farm to hire good workmen, whether they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews, or Christians of any sect or they may be atheists.

Washington thought he could best strengthen our national union by demonstrating patience, prudence, humility, moderation and self-discipline. It is a philosophy with roots in the ancient Roman republic, which distrusted passion and valued virtue and reason above all.

Although the least formally educated of our presidents, Washington engaged in lifelong learning and self-improvement, and he imagined such an education for all citizens because he understood that democracy depends on an enlightened and civic-minded electorate.

In his private life, Washington struggled as a businessman with burdensome debt. He sought for his country the self-sufficiency that he and his fellow small-business owners strived for themselves a country free from obligations to other countries.

Washington warned that the nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection. But contrary to Jeffersons warning about entangling alliances, Washington was not an isolationist. He saw an opportunity through free trade to create relationships of mutual interest with other countries, shared interests that might prove to be more powerful than the passions that lead to war.

In stepping away from a presidency that he could easily have held for life, Washington made a revolutionary statement about a democratic society. In his Farewell Address, he warned his countrymen and women that the experiment in democratic government cannot and must not be taken for granted.

Washingtons words speak to our generation as much as to his own. Hyperpartisanship, the rise of extreme elements, the trampling of cherished values, demagoguery, intolerance, bigotry and antagonism toward allies and adversaries all threaten democratic governance. Take heed of Washingtons warnings.

Joseph W. McDonnell is a professor of public policy and management at the University of Southern Maines Muskie School of Public Service in Portland.

Read this article:
Take heed of Washington's warnings about the threats to democracy ... - Bangor Daily News

Political leaders gathered at the Munich Security Conference to discuss geopolitical fault lines emerging between Europe and Asia - and beyond.

According to the participants, disputesover territorial sovereignty andregional influenceare amongthemost relevant barriers to peace on the Eurasian land mass.

"Territorial integrity must be respected while internationally recognized boundaries cannot be redrawn," Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev said Saturday at the conference.

Aliyev accused Armenia of occupying the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is run be a de facto independent state of ethnic Armenians.

"We support strongly territorial integrity of all the countries surrounding us sitting at this table," Alivey said, referring to political leaders from Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia and Kazakhstan.

"We suffered, ourselves, from the violation of territorial integrity, therefore the issue of territorial integrity is untouchable," he added.

Last year,violence flared in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, leaving dozens dead. Concerns that the conflict could spiral out of control prompted Moscow to negotiate a ceasefire that effectively de-escalated tensions in the breakaway region.

Despite Baku's growing influence as a stabilizing nation for the region and its amicable relations with Moscow, Azerbaijan voted in favor of the UN General Assembly resolution backing Kyiv's sovereignty in Crimea after Russia's illegal annexation.

The darkest division

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk took the floor to lash out at the issues that emerged in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, saying Moscow's actions constituted the pinnacle transgression against national sovereignty.

"Let me put it bluntly: President (Vladimir) Putin wants to run the world; at least part of the world. We has been very vocal, saying that the Russian Federation wants to restore the spheres of interest," Yatsenyuk said.

In 2014, Ukraine witnessed Moscow annex theCrimean peninsula in an internationally condemned referendum following European-leaning protests that lead to pro-Kremlin President Viktor Yanukovych's ouster.

Nearly 10,000 people have been killed in eastern Ukraine since fighting erupted in 2014

The annexation fueled pro-Russia sentimentin eastern Ukraine, prompting an insurgency that has left nearly 10,000 people dead and affected more than 500,000 children, according to UN figures.

Democratic aspirations

Yatsenyuk, who led the government after Yanukovych's departure, noted that upholding the values of liberal democracy would provide a response to such interventions.

"The best option and the best remedy is to stick to our values of democracy, values of the free world, values of the free media. We need to support every single country, to respond and act in concert," he added.

Estonia's President Kersti Kaljulaid not only raised concerns about Ukraine's predicament, but also considered Georgia, which in 2008 witnessed Russia's armed forces occupationof South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"What happened with these two countries? Indeed, they were standing on a very important line. I don't know whether it was a fault line or not, but their people expressed their democratic will to belong to the European value space and system," Kaljulaid said.

Recalling the history of her country and its fight against Soviet rule, Kaljulaid said both countries had been punished for that. She urged the participants to "consider carefully how we could push that fault line back."

"The fault line is not a constant line. The fault line can be moved back and forth, but it should always be the will of the people, in whichever way they want to go," she added.

See more here:
Eurasias fault lines move between sovereignty and democracy ... - Deutsche Welle

CHENNAI: The DMK on Sunday appealed to Tamil Nadu Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao to "nullify" the vote of confidence won by Sasikala loyalist EK Palaniswami, alleging it was adopted by contravening the rules of the state assembly.

DMK, whose MLAs were en masse evicted from the state assembly before the voting on the confidence motion on Saturday, also announced a state-wide hunger strike on February 22, protesting what it called was "murder of democracy".

In a representation submitted to Rao, Stalin, also the leader of the opposition in the assembly, urged him to "nullify the entire proceedings" to "protect the spirit of democracy and the Constitution".

DMK Rajya Sabha members RS Bharathi, TKS Elangovan, and Tiruchi N Siva submitted the representation.

Recalling his demand for secret voting on the motion of confidence moved by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami and Speaker P Dhanapal's rejection of it, he said, "Finding no other way to register our protest, we resorted to peaceful dharna inside the House."

He, however, said, "The Speaker ordered expulsion of all the members of the DMK without following the procedure."

"Assembly guards forcibly evicted us and many of us sustained injuries. Other opposition parties staged a walkout strongly protesting the action of Speaker," he said.

The DMK leader claimed that the Speaker "ignored the rule that if the House is adjourned after moving a motion, it lapses". He said it was "a mockery of democracy and a severe blow to the Constitution".

He claimed that in 1988 "when voting on the confidence motion was held by the Speaker with only two factions of the ruling party present in the House (it was) later declared as invalid and void by the then Governor".

It appealed to the Governor to weigh the proceedings in the state assembly, focusing on the Speaker's declaration that the confidence motion moved by Palanisami was adopted in absence of members of all the opposition parties.

It urged him to invoke his constitutional powers to nullify the proceedings to protect the spirit of democracy and Constitution.

Continue reading here:
'Murder of democracy': DMK announces hunger strike on February 22 to protest against trust vote - Times of India

The former head of one the United States leading scientific agencies has said she fears for the very future of our democracy if scientists are muzzled and intimidated by DonaldTrumps administration.

Speaking to a packed house of about 250 people at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) annual meeting, formerNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chiefProfessor Jane Lubchenco said she was even concerned for the health and well-being of scientists amid warning signs that she described as very sobering.

Since MrTrump was electedhe has appointed a string of climate change deniers to key positions in government, information about climate change has been deleted from federal websites and staff at the Environmental Protection Agency were told not to speak out publicly without approval.

This gag order was described by Professor Barbara Schaal, president of the AAAS, as chilling when she opened the meeting.

An event organised by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) at the annual meeting saw emotions run high as some people in the crowd compared Mr Trump to the Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini and his administration to the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

However, one of the founders of the UCS, Kurt Gottfried, who was a child in Austria when the country was annexed by Germany in 1938, said such comparisons were ridiculous at the moment but also warned they might not be in the future.

Ms Lubchenco, who was the NOAA administrator from 2009 to 2013, told the audience: My biggest worry is about the consequences to society if scientists are muzzled and intimidated, if science is defunded, data deleted and scientific institutions are undermined.

I fear for the health and well-being of scientists and the economy and the environment, indeed the very future of our democracy and our world.

Why? We need science at the table for individuals and for institutions to make smart decisions. We need data to help citizens and businesses be smart about what they do, we need science to create the new knowledge that will help society solve many of the big problems that are facing us.

She said it was unclear whether her worst fears would become reality but added we have warning signs that are very sobering.

I fear that neither policymakers nor citizens will have access to the best available science because federal scientists are afraid or unable to do their best science and to share it with the public and policymakers, Ms Lubchenco said.

I fear that the scientific integrity policies that are essential for wise decision-making will be either ignored or dismantled. I fear that science will seen increasingly as partisan and untrustworthy.

Scientists could decide to quit Government jobs or not apply for them, affecting everything from the quality of weather forecasts to new sources of renewable energy and the safety of medicines, she said.

But Ms Lubchenco also appealed to people not to make science a partisan issue.

It isnt, it shouldnt be and dont buy into that framing of the debate, she said.

The eminent physicist, Professor Lewis Branscomb, who has advised four US Presidents, echoed that point as he suggested some politicians in Mr Trumps own party might prove to be allies.

A great many of the leading Republicans are very nervous about where all this is going to lead, he said.

If there is a chance of having strong friends anywhere in the conservative community, then dont put them in the pot with everything else we plan to cook.

He appeared taken aback by the heady atmosphere of the meeting.

The energy is right here in the room, look at it, weve never had a meeting like this, Mr Branscomb said.

But some among the audience expressed fears that the dangers posed by Mr Trump were being underestimated.

Jeremy Grantham, the Boston-based investment strategist known for steering investors away from coming crashes and who set up the Grantham Foundation For the Protection of the Environment, accused scientists of having a lack of passion.

I think scientists actually think passion is not scientific. They have enormous respect for the dignity of science, he said.

They understate their work on climate change and that is simply dangerous if it leads to a lack of understanding by senior politicians.

This is a matter of real survivability for certainly our society as we know it and for many species including our own.

Mr Grantham said there was a need for scientists to speak out more strongly on such issues and it shouldnt take the second coming of Mussolini to provoke such a response.

And Dr Phil Rice, of Harvard Medical School and an emergency doctor, went further.

This is an authoritarian fascist government. All these institutions that people are hoping to rely upon to keep him and his group in check I think are just going to fold, he said.

This is a locomotive coming at us just like they did in Germany, they will come for the scientists, this is just the first salvo.

They will attack the scientists and they will imprison them. I think part of the response has to be that we are going to protect each and every one of us that gets attacked.

Even if you just do your science and dont speak out, you will get attacked. The universities are going to be gone after just as they are beginning to.

However Mr Gottfried advised against comparing Mr Trump to the far-right leaders of 1930s Europe.

I saw my school yard filled with tanks and my sky filled with German fighter planes, he said.

Ive experienced what you are talking about and I want to warn you about over-stating the case.

I think the US is not Germany or Austria in 1938. We have a lot of strengths we can rely on.

We damage ourselves by exaggerating the threat. This country has strengths that Germany did not have, to equate thetwo is ridiculous.

Unfortunately you may turn out to be right, but to talk now as if it is a forgone conclusion is a mistake.

You may help the people who want [a] Hitler to come to power. Ive seen what you are talking about and its not what we are facing. It may be, but we help it come about if we make exaggerations that are really way off.

No one was available for comment at the White House on Saturday evening.

Go here to see the original:
Donald Trump threatens 'the very future of our democracy', top scientist warns - The Independent