I would be amused if it wasn’t so serious.
The venerable (!) New York Times carried a front-page news story on Sunday that had “Trump” and “fascism” in the title.
Fascism is defined as follows: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Donald Trump has many faults, but he can hardly be called a “fascist.”
Fascist countries in World War II included Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Croatia and Japan, all of which invaded other countries or practiced genocide, or both. I can’t see that happening under Mr. Trump.
The US constitution has been in effect for over 200 years. Except for a major hiccup known as the Civil War, it’s worked quite well. The checks and balances in place have been quite effective. It will be hard for a President Trump (or a second Clinton) to rule in an authoritarian manner, no matter how authoritarian the candidate might sound now.
The NYT should be careful what it writes (that would require a change in editorial policy in itself!) and not be frightening people.
Other media outlets in the last few days have chosen to use words like “Trump” and “violence” in the same sentence, when covering Trump rallies. But, please note, the violence is caused by those opposed to Trump. TV coverage shows most have been immigrants who fear he will send them all back to their country of origin.
Instead of throwing gasoline onto the fire, why can’t our TV news programs and the New York Times, show where the Republican presidential candidate is wrong. They could actually do this in an intelligent debate. Admittedly, less people would be inclined to watch, so ratings would suffer, which is what it’s all about.
But Mr. Trump needs to be pinned down on foreign policy, especially. His understanding of international relations could result in the US losing its allies, in which case the President of the United States would no longer be “the Leader of the Free World.” His proposals on trade could actually make things a lot worse. A history lesson on the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act would be a good place to start.
There are some good reasons not to vote for Donald Trump; just as there are good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. The moniker (no pun intended): “crooked Hillary” is not without merit. Check out the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer: “The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” (2015).
Neither candidate would have made it under a parliamentary system.
If there are good reasons not to vote for either Trump or Hillary, then perhaps it’s time not to vote at all!
Alex Haley’s novel “Roots” was turned into a highly successful 1977 TV mini-series. A new version is showing on The History Channel this week.
The original series did not improve race relations.
Supposedly, Haley traced his ancestry back to The Gambia.
Some years later, research by a historian proved that Haley could not have done that. In fact, his book was not a novel based on fact, but, simply, just a novel. Of course, when this was revealed it was on page 17 of the New York Times!
So far, we have not been told that the new series is also fiction and that Haley could not trace his genealogy back very far.
Whether it only makes racial tensions worse remains to be seen.
The slavery depicted in “Roots” was horrible. So is the slavery of today. According to UNESCO a few years ago, slavery is now back in every single African nation. When will one of our television companies make a series on that?
Race relations are set to deteriorate further in South Africa after the country’s parliament passed a Land Reform bill that will enable the president to effectively confiscate white-owned farmland to promote equality.
“South Africa has passed a bill criticized by some opposition parties and farming groups that allows the compulsory purchase of land in the public interest.
The bill, approved by parliament on Thursday, will enable the state to pay for land at a value determined by a government adjudicator and then expropriate it for the “public interest,” ending the willing-buyer/willing-seller approach to land reform.” (Al-Jazeera, 27th May.)
This may seem progressive in western countries, but it’s actually a big regressive step backwards.
White South African farmers have been highly productive commercial farmers. That is, they farm on a massive scale. Black African farmers, by contrast, are subsistence farmers. They just grow enough for their own families. It’s a cultural difference.
When President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe confiscated white farmland almost twenty years ago, food production in the country plummeted and the nation’s economy was shattered. Within a few years, the country was bankrupt and its money worthless.
It will take a while for South Africa to reach that point, but it will come.
The difference between Zimbabwe and South Africa is that the former was helped by South Africa’s agricultural produce during its man-made famine. South Africa has no such neighbor. Its people will starve.