Off the Wall Politics

Friday, February 3, 2017

Real news, fake news and everything in between (originally written Jan. 28, 2017)

I don't envy any of us looking for real news these days. It was so much easier in years past. All we had to do was wait until six o'clock to tune in to one of the 'big three' channels (ABC, NBC or CBS) and wait for 'Uncle Walt' (Cronkite), Eric Sevareid, Douglas Edwards or Chet Huntley and David Brinkley to tell us what happened while we were at work or school. Granted, we also had the radio to fill the void, but it was the major networks that did the heavy lifting. They were supported by the newswire services like the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters and others with international contributors stationed around the globe, so we ended up being pretty well informed.

It was news we could take to the bank, usually bereft of personal opinion. If even the most news-hungry among us wanted more then we subscribed to a newspaper or two and found enough balance to form our own opinions and make informed judgments. THAT was a time when we were less critical and less jaded and believed most of the news we heard because we trusted the men and women that were reporting it. I don't know for the life of me when things changed and made us disbelievers, but whenever it was, it really shook things up and sent us on a downward spiral to the deepest reaches of skepticism.

Perhaps it coincided with the Kennedy Assassination of the mid-sixties and the Warren Commission that followed, or it could have been the Watergate Scandal of the early seventies. Maybe it was the Vietnam War. In any event, many Americans became frustrated and discouraged and turned off and tuned out, but some hungered for more which gave rise to CNN and later the other cable networks. The good news was that this resulted in more choices with more places to find the 'real news.' That was until almost every outlet started wooing specific audiences and 'tweaking' their coverage, accordingly. It didn't help that they allowed (and in some cases even encouraged) their reporters to wear two hats of both journalist and commentator.

To be fair, some, like CBS, the former home of Edward R. Murrow (who made his name covering the Blitz in London), resisted, but over time, even the Columbia Broadcasting System - that was known as "Can't Broadcast Sports" - succumbed, as the reality of dwindling news budgets made their demise as a 'true' news network a foregone conclusion. The final nail in the newsroom's coffin was the Internet which opened the floodgates to a tsunami of webloggers of every stripe and enabled even the truth-illiterates to act like journalists. Couple that with the advent of the smart phone (with camera) and all those with an axe to grind or a special interest to promote could gain access to thousands if not millions of eager consumers of their particular brand of news. The only trouble with such an expansion of possibilities was that the facts were often lost among the lines of their bits and bytes.

Today we're awash in information and have no spirit guide to help us circumnavigate the roadblocks. So, instead of having a dearth of news sources, we now have an 'embarrassment of riches' of them. The problem is that this multiplicity of sources isn't bringing us any closer to knowing the truth about events happening all around us. We are faced with a real dilemma. Do we gravitate to the source we like best, that reflects our own opinions, or do we look beyond the commentators that have a different viewpoint (even though they rile us up) because they are making an effort to give us something more objective? It's a tough choice, but one each of us makes every day.

I know people that never watch cable news or any channel for that matter, and I know folks that only watch one. I have friends that only get their information from websites. The newest form of news is something called, 'fake news.' These are stories that are blatantly false and are spewn out into the ether with the ostensible purpose to delegitimize, demean, or defame individuals and/or their ideologies. These are, quite simply, 'propaganda.' Originally a religious term, the word is now used to characterize a message designed to promote a political cause or point of view. Most of us associate it with the national socialist movement of 1930s Germany, but it is now being revived and used to describe information emanating from the podium of the new U.S. Administration.

Propaganda is not making our job of ferreting out the truth any easier, as it has even infiltrated the studios of many of our traditional news-gathering and disseminating sources like certain cable news outlets that are only too happy to repeat them to boost their ratings.

If we're really intent on learning the truth behind the news then we're going to have to spend more time seeking it from a variety of sources OR we could just use that old 100% reliable, time-tested method. You know the one I mean..."If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck."

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and now political strategist and author. He has written six books and over 600 articles on topics ranging from politics to economics to social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Unbaiting the mousetrap (originally written Jan. 29, 2017)

President Donald Trump has reversed that old adage, "If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door," by asking Congress to fund the Mexico Friendship Wall (my name for the Mexican border wall). He is just fulfilling one of the campaign promises that got him elected by 62 million people or 47% of the voting population in November. Republicans knew he would do it, but those on the far Left thought the wall was just one of his many campaign slogans. This first week in office has shown many 'doubting Thomases' that the President takes his promises, seriously. I've heard many analogies about illegal immigration. One is, "What if your daughter was getting married and a couple hundred uninvited guests turned up, insisted on consuming your salmon fumé and drinking your champagne that cost you $40/bottle? Then they demanded to dance the first dance with the bride and when the gifts were opened grabbed a few of them for themselves, and afterwards, when the festivities ended, decided to camp out in the banquet hall and refused to pay their fair share of the costs?"

Another was, "What if you were watching the Superbowl with your family in your living room and a dozen strangers broke down your front door, plopped themselves down on your sofa and insisted you change the channel after having left their dirty clothes and muddy footprints on your new shag carpet, after which they commandeered your bedroom and told you and the missus to sleep on the floor...and in the morning, they announced that they were staying on for a few years?"

Most of us would probably object, strenuously, citing our right of private property. Asserting our right to a strong national border is much the same. It's up to us to refuse entry to anyone not having an invitation (legal documents). The U.S. is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to accepting legal immigrants - a million a year in fact - some having waited years for the privilege of a coveted permanent resident visa. These are, for the most part, non-Caucasian immigrants, I might add, from all over the world. As I said, the process is a long one. Sometimes it takes years to complete, and while they've been waiting, hundreds of thousands have 'crashed the party' by sneaking through our southern border, after which they've thumbed their noses at our immigration laws and promptly declared themselves 'asylum seekers' to our Border Patrol.

During the Obama years, this was the preferred method of gaining access to the USA, as border officials were required to allow the 'asylum seekers' to stay here while a court date was arranged for them. Most simply ignored the court order and disappeared into the woodwork. Then there are the 'visa overstayers' - people who came to the U.S. with a legal tourist visa and decided they liked it here, and stayed...permanently. They too, have disappeared into the woodwork. The estimated size of that group is 42% of the total illegal immigrant population, maybe five million people.

Those supporting open borders don't seem to think this is a problem. They view our country like some kind of open bar with a free smorgasbord, and that any one of us who would dare to criticize these underprivileged people is some kind of bully, statist or racist. We are vilified for wanting law or order in our immigration system. Our new President is not going to make many friends with the 65 million people that voted for Hillary Clinton with his executive orders, nor is he going to become bosom buddies with Mexican President Nieto by building the Friendship Wall OR when he signs an executive order that cuts off U.S. aid to those countries that will not take back citizens that have committed crimes here. The rubber will meet the road soon, and Americans will, once again, choose sides on the immigration debate. I can only hope that our Congress will act swiftly, in a bi-partisan fashion, to enact a new, comprehensive immigration law that will protect our borders, ensure the safety of our citizens and, yes, treat the general non-criminal illegal immigrant population with civility while we find a solution for the 11-13 million of them who have not broken any other laws and want to remain here.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Cats and dogs (and Republicans and Democrats) (originally written Jan. 30, 2017)

The animal world teaches us much about ourselves, but what it teaches is not always welcomed. Take cats and dogs, for instance. You have 'cat people' who simply adore their fuzzy creatures and fawn over and kowtow to them as if they were tiny emperors. Their every deviation from normal behavior is forgiven (like destroying the furniture and marking their territory on your drapes). It's forgiven because they are "just being independent and living out their own individual personalities."

What this actually says about the owners is hard to say, but I would venture that people that own cats are tolerant to the point of being pushovers. They are believers in the rights of the individual and prone to protectionism. They also take the long view of things and easily forgive. On the other end of the pet spectrum are the dog lovers. They don't brook the flagrant flaunting of house rules. If you're a dog and you need to relieve yourself, you grab the leash in your mouth and amble over to dad's easy chair and rattle it so he wakes up. You do it because you've been trained to do it, not like some cat that doesn't give a rat's whiskers about good breeding. When you're done, you're rewarded with a snack and a "good boy" and everything goes back to normal. Dad sinks back into his chair. You find your doggy bed, curl up and put on your cute look.

Yes, the lives of cats and canines are different, just as Republicans' and Democrats' lives are different, but sometimes they're similar. If we look at the last sixteen years of two Presidents, let's see which is the cat and which is the dog (and their owners). George Bush started a war based on faulty information. Barack Obama let a war continue by drawing an ineffectual 'line in the sand.' George Bush acknowledged a terrorist threat and acted, decisively. Barack Obama refused to call a terrorist threat what it was (radical Islamic-based). In his second administration, Bush ignored the signs of a growing economic crisis after adding over a trillion dollars to our national debt. In his first term, Obama tackled the problem but with the wrong methods and then added trillions more to our national debt. George Bush tried to get comprehensive immigration reform passed. Barack Obama tried to do it on his own with illegal executive orders. George Bush relaxed on his ranch by cutting down bushes. Barack Obama chased a ball around the world's golf courses at every opportunity.

George Bush had a country boy's sense of humor and didn't attempt singing in public. Barack Obama preferred an urbane style of humor and sang and danced at will. George Bush went to church and prayed for America. Barack Obama went to a church whose pastor said God damn America. George Bush admired and respected the military. Barack Obama thought they were unnecessary (until his Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden). Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate also exhibit some animalistic tendencies. When George Bush was elected President after a contentious battle, the Democrats called him, 'illegitimate' and refused to work with him. When Barack Obama was elected, the Republicans said they would oppose him every step of the way. History has repeated itself once again with accusations that our current President is illegitimate because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote or was simply the wrong person.

It's anybody's guess what kind of 'animal' President Trump's behavior will resemble. If canine, can he learn new tricks and obey his dual masters, the Constitution and the people, while abiding by the rule of law? Can he do these things without alienating the rest of the family or will he take on the persona of the feline and do as he pleases, believing that every action, no matter how disconcerting, will be forgiven because he's the king of the castle? Unlike ourselves, animals are really smart. They know how long their leashes are and how far they can go before being yanked back by their owners. Every President needs to be aware that the euphoria of puppy and kittendom lasts for a short time before the novelty and cuteness wears off. Woof or meow, Mr. President?

Right or privilege? (originally written Jan. 31, 2017)

Over the weekend, the President signed an executive order that would restrict the entry of foreign citizens, predominantly refugees, from seven different Middle Eastern and African countries for a period of 120 days. It obviously came as a surprise to many people - especially the 109 foreign citizens holding legitimate visas from some of those seven countries as they attempted to enter the USA. It also came as a bit of a surprise to some of our government's officials who were responsible for processing those individuals.

This bureaucratic problem should have been anticipated, but it was determined that giving short notice was preferable to giving refugees awaiting resettlement (who might have been insufficiently vetted and who may not be who they say they are), longer notice. On the surface, that seems like a good reason from a security perspective, but to avoid giving sufficient notice to our immigration and customs officers was a mistake. It ended up creating an unnecessary problem, one the Trump Administration didn't need in the wake of many other executive orders that inspired opposition from human rights groups and the 'protest class' of Americans that were itching for another reason to man the barricades.

Legal scholars and Constitutional law experts have weighed in, and the majority of them have agreed that the order was legal and in keeping with precedent. This did not stop the media from characterizing it as a "Muslim ban" and "contrary to American values," despite the fact that the government's list of countries omitted the two predominantly top Muslim population countries: Indonesia and India. This was to be expected, as the mainstream media is constantly looking for ways to discredit and demean the new Administration and the President.

The situation begs the question, "Is entry to the United States a right or a privilege?" Legally, it is a privilege, granted by the U.S. government. On that there is no legal dispute, but the Left (and especially advocates of open borders) maintain that we have a moral obligation as well as a legal one to take in refugees. According to the 1951 'Refugee Convention,' a person arriving at our shores and claiming political asylum, must be taken in. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) deals with people referred from the UNHCR (the United Nations Human Rights Agency), a U.S. embassy or other assigned non-governmental organizations or a limited direct application scheme. It is available to people who already have refugee status (or who would likely qualify), who are outside the U.S., but may wish our country to consider them for entry as a resettled refugee. (The U.S. was scheduled to take in 110,000 refugees under USRAP in 2017, but the Trump Administration wants this number lowered to 50,000.)

The new executive order calls for USRAP to be suspended for all refugee applicants from these countries for a period of 90-120 days. The reason offered for this suspension by the Administration is that additional vetting of applicants must be done. Of additional note is that the U.S. currently takes in the largest number of refugees under the UNHCR's resettlement program and that under international law there is no legal obligation to even have or operate a resettlement program!

Those opposing the moratorium maintain that no terrorists from those seven countries have actually entered the U.S. and have committed acts of terror in the U.S., so the ban is just a way of punishing innocent, bona fide refugees. Proponents believe that the State Department has not done an adequate job of vetting the refugees therefore, a temporary halt to their entry is justified, until a more thorough job of investigating them has been done. Opponents are trying to make a case that this is a red herring for America's rejection of Muslim immigrants and demonization of the Muslim religion, something the facts contradict. The Administration points to the failed refugee policies of Western Europe (countries like Sweden, Germany and France, to name three), that have led to a massive influx of refugees from Syria, for example, and the need to devise a better system for the U.S. This is not a moral issue; it is a security issue, but it does call into question the U.S.' long term policy on refugees.

While the jury is out on that issue, the lawsuits challenging the Administration's edict will wind their way through the courts, and the recent developments in the Trump Justice Department (the Acting Attorney General has just been removed from her position after publicly refusing to defend any lawsuits against the government) will only serve to strengthen the Left's contention that the Administration is bent on creating immigration policy by executive fiat instead of listening to the will of the people. This is, however, a hypocritical view considering the Obama Administration attempted (and succeeded) in doing just that when Barack Obama was signing illegal executive orders on DACA, for example.

This current situation will continue to unfold in the coming days and weeks, but it will take on the guise of a morality play if left strictly up to the media and the Democrats. The losers will be our reputation on the world stage along with the possibility of achieving political comity that we all had hoped would be resuscitated with the election of 2016.

Entrenched warfare (originally written Feb. 1, 2017)

It's getting impossible to talk politics anymore without somebody going ballistic. Even the best of friends are treading on thin ice with one another when the subject of Donald Trump or the Presidential election of 2016 comes up. We must admit the fact that have lost the war on civility and have now dug ourselves a long, deep trench from which we are lobbing verbal grenades at each other seemingly totally oblivious to the long-term effects this will have on our friendships.

This parting of the ways on things political was building for a long time, but it has escalated to the point of absolute ridiculousness. We cannot any longer discuss the important topics that affect our nation and ourselves without pulling on our partisan uniforms, wrapping ourselves in talking points and strapping on our six-guns. We have become so singularly focused on trouncing our conversation partners and beating them into submission that we have forgotten what it's like to be kind and considerate...or listening.

There have already been many victims in this vicious partisan war, but perhaps the first was that old word, and necessary ingredient in any meaningful discussion, comity. Webster's defines comity as "courtesy and considerate behavior towards others," and it is sorely missing like the chili from our enchiladas. No matter where we look, someone is taking sides and girding themselves for a rumble. It's the U.S. against Mexico, Hispanics against the Anglos, pro or anti abortion activists against each other, internationalists against nationalists, women against men, and the list goes on.

The 'Million Women's March' of January 21st gave us a preview of coming attractions in what will become the crusade against perceived but yet unproven abuses of the established social order. If you are pro life you are anti woman. If you want a secure border you are a racist. If you want our government to follow the laws of our land you are a fascist. If you want lower taxes and a relaxation of job-killing regulations you are a capitalist apologist. If you support traditional marriage you are anti-homosexuals. If you support 'all lives matter' you are against Black America.

What we have totally forgotten is that there is a lot of space between the ends of the social and political spectrum and a huge gray area between black and white. The conversations between friends have become sparring matches as we desperately try to gain the upper hand. It's gotten to the point where the next victims are ourselves and our long-standing relationships with people we have known, in some cases, all our lives. This has got to stop or we will lose the very thing that holds our society together, the free, open and civil discourse that enables us to move forward.

Acting true to form, Washington, D.C. is leading the way in our rush to the bottom of the leach fields with the intransigence of the political parties (one in particular) to find common ground on the President's cabinet nominations and now, as of this evening, with the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be the next Supreme court Justice, the battle lines are drawn. The Democrats are already delaying the vote on the cabinet nominees and will oppose Judge Gorsuch who was, approved, unanimously, by the Senate for his current position back in 2006! Hypocrisy rules.

It's one thing to be the 'loyal opposition' in any government, but it's quite another to oppose for opposition's sake, and in this, both parties are at fault, as Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Charles Schumer have proven. They are both denizens of the same swamp that President Trump vowed to drain and emblematic of the destructive political war that is soon to engulf us all unless we take a different tack. It's been said that, "elections have consequences," and a truer statement is hard to find, but within that truth resides a larger truth, and it is the necessity to work together for the betterment of our country as a whole.

Our new President lost the popular vote by over three million votes, but won a legitimate victory with the electoral vote. While that gives him a mandate to govern, it does not give him carte blanche to ignore the 53% that didn't vote for him. Making the same mistake as his predecessor is still a mistake.

Leading a democratic republic like ours that is so divided along party and ideological lines is like walking through a minefield, but it is a journey that must be undertaken...carefully. One big misstep will be deadly for our democracy and could lead to wholesale social upheaval. We must all do our part to help him sweep the field for the undetonated mines that could rip us all apart, for we are all on the same journey.

Probation and the nation (originally written Feb. 1, 2017)

Ninety days used to be the standard probationary period for a new employee. Management was fairly comfortable that it could accurately assess a new hire's strengths and weaknesses during that time. Not anymore.

It seems like America (and the rest of the world) feels that two weeks is long enough to judge its new President, so the word has gone out that Donald J. Trump, 70-year old, successful multi-billionaire who has run several companies and employed upwards of 20,000 people should be held to a higher standard than the average worker and only be allowed a couple weeks on the job before he's fired. Back in 2008, a young, one-term Senator with no financial, managerial or international experience was elected to the nation's highest office on the emotional message of "I'm not George Bush" and "hope and change." For the next eight years, Barack Obama proved his lack of experience in a number of bone-headed decisions that drove our fragile vehicle of commerce over the cliff (of course it was all George W. Bush's fault). He then proceeded to dally and dither, whither and thither on the international scene, spending his time drawing lines in the sand and posturing for the cameras. His was the 'decision by default' Presidency that proved the adage that if you left a pile of papers on your desk long enough, they would eventually go away.

The current occupant of the White House has a different style. It's called "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get). Example...if you heard him make a campaign promise in 2016, you will probably see him fulfill it in 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020. If there's one thing that Donald Trump knows, it is that he doesn't have much time before the forces of (political) nature catch up to him and restrict his forward movement. Until then, he will blind us with his speed and decisiveness. He told us that "we would get tired of winning," but what he didn't tell us was that he would break the Presidential sound barrier with a flurry of executive orders his first two weeks in office!

The reasons are clear to those that know Mr. Trump. He's a true workaholic that is driven to succeed. Detractors will say that it's because of his narcissistic personality. To that I say, "So what?" I'd rather have a CEO that knows who he is and what he wants than someone who is on a 'journey of personal discovery' while in the White House. Donald Trump eschews hope and change. Hope without a plan is for saps. It's actions that count. And if you aren't up for the challenge, "You're fired."

The President has surrounded himself with the same type of men and women. They're not theoreticians, not academics, but people with street smarts and, yes, money. None of them are apologizing for their wealth, nor should they. When our system works well it is like an ever-expanding apple pie. When you remove one slice you actually leave room for another larger slice to take its place. The Left doesn't understand that, and that is why they will always oppose people like Donald Trump. Mr. Trump knows this and that's why he's moving fast, leaving the media in doubt as to which 'outlandish' thing to cover. What his opponents haven't figured out is that this is a strategy not an ideology. His enemies will call this 'unfair.' "He should go slower and give us time to catch our breath (and formulate our own plan on how to bring him down)."

No, the President knows better. By not giving them time to regroup, he makes them play his game and forces them to oppose everything he does instead of being selective - a little like using a howitzer to kill a sparrow. Sooner or later, he believes, they will end up shooting themselves in their own feet and anger the American public. Time will tell if he's right. I just hope I can keep up with this tireless President apprentice.

Protesting the protestors (originally written Feb. 2, 2017)

Oh, California, wherefore art thou California, the California of old, the California of civility and understatement and of tranquility and openness? Leave it to the Golden State's University of California (Berkeley Campus) to resuscitate the "Free Speech Movement" of 1964-65, but this time without the free speech.

It seems that that campus' undergrads, imported rabble-rousers and quite a few professors were offended by the very idea that an opposing voice was attempting to penetrate their PC and safe-space protected little bubble the other evening. So, as typical à gauche anarchists generally do, they created havoc and destroyed public property to protest the scheduled speech of one Milo Yiannopoulos, a Greek-born British journalist who happens to write for a right of center website, Breitbart News. Of note is the fact that Mr. Yiannopoulos' speech was sold out and, with very short notice, he was able to help the organizers raise the necessary funds for extra security to protect himself and the audience. A similar situation was largely averted here in Albuquerque nearly two weeks ago as the Acting President of UNM, Mr. Chaouki Abdallah, quite correctly waived the extra security costs for Mr. Yiannopoulos' speech at the Student Union Building. It would appear that 'our' snowflakes have a slower melting point than UC Berkeley's, and while there were protests here, they were not as destructive and dangerous as those of our Californian friends.

It seems that we all have now entered, 'the year of living dangerously' where ski masks, Molotov cocktails and baseball bats have replaced the slide rules, skateboards and backpacks of our university students. Goodness knows many students have a right to be angry. Some have five-figure student loans and no jobs for them when they leave the safe space womb of the halls of ivy. Many will leave with degrees in obscure and commercially undesirable subjects that only qualify them for another bite of the University 'apple' (a Master's program). With that to look forward to, I can understand their frustration, but taking to the barricades to bite the hand that feeds them is not a very productive use of their free time.

I suppose they're also angry that they have four years of conservative political policies to endure, spearheaded by a President that they despise, whose party ran the table and now is rolling back all the social 'gains' that were made during the cool guy's presidency. If they're honest with themselves, maybe they'll admit that they don't have a lot of personal experience to fall back on when it comes to criticizing successful people for their success. It's always much easier to say that "they didn't build that," that their wealth was unfairly earned, and that successful people should be embarrassed that they have money. Shame on them. They should be giving it all away to the truly needy...like college students.

We had all better batten down the hatches as we're in for a rocky ride as hundreds of hundreds of thousands of disgruntled Democrats, ex-Bernie Sanders supporters, Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street members, along with angry hard-core feminists, join forces with student activists to vocally - and with occasional violence - push back hard at the new Administration's conservative policies. Our first Amendment will be used as both a shield and punching bag by both sides in the coming years as we figure out how to tackle protests against non-PC speech and the protestors that would attempt to stifle its free exercise. There's no question that university administrators will play a decisive role in allowing or disallowing future speakers their time at the podium. A different challenge awaits campus police and local police forces as they attempt to keep order. Some key questions must be asked before future demonstrations get out of hand, the most important of which is, "How much latitude will university leaders allow their student bodies before they call in the uniformed forces to quell protests that have the potential to escalate to the point of violence or destruction of property?" They had better have a plan, because I can guarantee you that the protestors do.