Why Trump's Immigration Order Is Bad Foreign Policy

A rally against President Donald Trump’s order that restricts travel to the U.S. AP Photo/Steven Senne

By David FitzGerald, University of California, San Diego and David Cook Martín, Grinnell College

President Donald Trump banned the entry of people from seven majority Muslim countries last week. Leaders as far apart ideologically as former Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. Bernie Sanders warned the ban could become a recruitment tool for terrorists.

In addition, the U.S. risks straining or losing important diplomatic ties and fragile relationships. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and even Theresa May have warned about the geopolitical effects of a ban on immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries. Iran has already promised to take “reciprocal measures” after Trump’s immigration order, although the exact measures remain to be specified.

Just last December, the al-Qaida affiliate in East Africa, Al-Shabab, used footage of Trump’s call for a ban on the entry of Muslims as part of a recruitment film.

Banning immigration from seven majority Muslim countries and selectively admitting Christians is a bad idea for many moral and legal reasons. A long history shows such policies also threaten national security. Our research for the book “Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policies in the Americas” shows the perils of policies targeting particular nationalities.

Losing hearts and minds
From the 19th century to 1965, the United States discriminated against various groups. In the 1920s, the U.S. established national origins quotas that set the number of immigrants who were allowed to enter the U.S. from certain countries. These quotas were designed to restrict the entrance of southern and eastern Europeans because nativists like famed eugenecist Harry Laughlin and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge feared the newcomers were likely to be criminals, and even anarchist or Bolshevik terrorists. Anti-Catholic sentiment played a role as well.

The laws kept out Asians altogether on grounds that “no alien ineligible for citizenship shall be admitted to the United States” (43 Stat. 153. Sec. 13 (c)). Asians were ineligible for citizenship because of their race. The quotas gave 51,227 of the 164,667 annual spots for immigration to Germans, 3,845 to Italians and zero to Japanese.

Bipartisan coalitions ended this discrimination in large part because it hurt U.S. national security at key moments during World War II and the Cold War.

A presidential commission after World War II found that U.S. exclusion of Japanese immigrants had contributed directly to the growth of Japanese militarism and helped motivate Japan’s attack on the United States in 1941. When the quotas ending Japanese immigration passed in 1924, the press in Japan declared a “National Humiliation Day” to protest the law. Seventeen years later, as the Japanese navy steamed toward Pearl Harbor, Commander Kikuichi Fujita wrote in his diary that it was time to teach the United States a lesson for its behavior, including the exclusion of Japanese immigrants.

During World War II, China became a major ally of the United States. Japan tried to drive a wedge between the Chinese and the Americans by portraying Japan as the defender of Asians against U.S. racism. The fact that the United States had banned Chinese immigration since 1882 through the Chinese Exclusion Act helped make the case. Japanese media in occupied China pointed to the hypocrisy of the Americans, who presented the United States as a friend of the Chinese while banning their entry.

A broad U.S. coalition called for Congress to end Chinese exclusion. President Franklin Roosevelt argued that repeal would “silence the distorted Japanese propaganda” and be “important in the cause of winning the war and of establishing a secure peace.” Congress halted the ban on Chinese naturalization in 1943 and allowed a symbolic annual quota. China remained the key U.S. ally in Asia during the war.

During the Cold War, the quota system posed a new national security problem. The Soviet Union and United States were competing to win the hearts and minds of Asians in battlegrounds like Korea and Vietnam. Radio Moscow’s broadcasts to Asia pointed out that U.S. law continued to treat Asians as inferiors. How could Asians take the side of a country that shunned them?

During the Korean War, Sen. William Benton of Arkansas highlighted the folly of spending billions of dollars and suffering 100,000 U.S. casualties while continuing to restrict the entrance of Koreans. In 1952 he told the Senate:

“We can totally destroy that investment, and can ruthlessly and stupidly destroy faith and respect in our great principles, by enacting laws that, in effect, say to the peoples of the world: ‘We love you, but we love you from afar. We want you but, for God’s sake, stay where you are.’”

By 1956, the Republican and Democratic party platforms both endorsed ending the national origins quotas. Congress finally ended the system in 1965.

Post-9/11
Americans saw the challenge of singling out nationalities again after the 2001 terrorist attacks. The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) required male citizens of 25 countries who were in the United States on nonimmigrant visas to register with the government. With the exception of North Korea, all of the countries were predominantly Arab or Muslim. More than 1,000 immigrants were detained. None was convicted of terrorism.

Governments in the Middle East and South Asia that had been working with the United States to counter terror were outraged by the harassment of their citizens. It’s hard to work together when one part of the team feels denigrated by the other. The NSEERS program was suspended in 2011 by the Obama administration. Officials concluded that NSEERS had fueled the impression that the United States was hostile to Muslims without stopping criminal acts.

History shows that humiliating national or religious groups on the world stage by restricting their entry makes it harder to keep our allies. It can create new enemies. This ban may put the United States at risk.


About Today's Contributors:
David FitzGerald, Theodore E. Gildred Chair in U.S.-Mexican Relations, Professor of Sociology, and Co-Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego and David Cook Martín, Professor of Sociology and Assistant Vice President of Global Education, Grinnell College

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

UK: Bring Back Bottle Deposits To Stop Plastic Pollution In Our Oceans [Petition]

Image via 38degrees.org

The following is an email I've recently received from the peeps at 38Degrees.org... It's about an interesting idea on how to reduce the marine plastic pollution. Worth a read (even if you don't live in the UK). 

Those of you who live in the UK are (obviously) very welcome to read that email and sign the petition. Thanks in advance :-)

Stay safe!

Loup Dargent


The Email:
"Dear Loup,

Plastic bottles are littering our high streets, parks and beaches. They don’t rot, so they end up clogging up landfill sites and the sea. [1]

Right now, the government is drawing up a plan to tackle litter in Britain. [2] And there’s a simple solution. They’re considering starting a bottle deposit scheme: 10p is added to the price of a drink and if you return the bottle you get the money back. It would mean that millions of bottles would get recycled.

But they haven’t made up their mind yet, and sugary drinks company lobbyists are pushing hard to get them to drop the idea. [3] A huge petition would prove to the government the public supports it, and could convince them to introduce the scheme.

‘Surfers Against Sewage ’ are an environmental charity - and they’ve started a petition on the 38 Degrees website. [4] Can you add your name now? It takes less than a minute:

SIGN THE PETITION

Plastic pollution is a huge problem, and a bottle exchange might feel like a small step. But from the 5p plastic bag charge to persuading supermarkets to switch to paper cotton buds, these little changes are adding up. It means we’re turning the tide on plastic litter and pollution. [5]

Other countries are already using bottle deposits to tackle plastic pollution. In Norway, 96% of bottles are returned by people for recycling. [5] We can clean up Britain’s towns, cities and beaches too. But first, we need to show the government that thousands of us want a bottle deposit scheme. 

Can you add your name to the petition now? 

SIGN THE PETITION

Thanks for all you do

Lorna, Trish, Robin and the 38 Degrees team"

NOTES:

[1] BBC: Plastic bottle litter on beaches up 43%, conservationists say:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35878760

[2] The Telegraph:Plastic bottle 'tax' could be introduced to tackle waste:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/plastic-bottle-tax-could-introduced-tackle-waste/

[3] You can read the Greenpeace investigation here:

energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/01/25/investigation-coca-cola-fight-back-plans-tackle-plastic-waste/

[4] You can find about more about Surfers Against Sewage here:

www.sas.org.uk/

[5] The Guardian: England plastic bag usage drops 85% since 5p charge introduced:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/england-plastic-bag-usage-drops-85-per-cent-since-5p-charged-introduced

The Guardian: Tesco and Sainsbury’s ban plastic cotton buds:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/30/tesco-and-sainsburys-ban-plastic-cotton-buds-to-cut-waste

[6] Sky News: Sky Ocean Rescue: How bottle deposit scheme boosts recycling:

news.sky.com/story/sky-ocean-rescue-calls-for-uk-plastic-bottle-deposit-scheme-10741655 

Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline! [Petition]

The following is an email I've received earlier from Change.org, regarding Trump's executive action advancing the Dakota Access Pipeline... Feel free to read it (or/and watch the video) and act accordingly.

Stay safe!

Loup Dargent

Image via rezpectourwater.com

The Email:
"Loup – There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it.

Petitioning U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline Petition by Anna Lee, Bobbi Jean & the Oceti Sakowin Youth Fort Yates, North Dakota Sign the petition I’m 13 years-old and as an enrolled member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I’ve lived my whole life by the Missouri River. It runs by my home in Fort Yates North Dakota and my great grandparents original home was along the Missouri River in Cannon Ball. The river is a crucial part of our lives here on the Standing Rock Reservation. But now a private oil company wants to build a pipeline that would cross the Missouri River less than a mile away from the Standing Rock Reservation and if we don’t stop it, it will poison our river and threaten the health of my community when it leaks. My friends and I have played in the river since we were little; my great grandparents raised chickens and horses along it. When the pipeline leaks, it will wipe out plants and animals, ruin our drinking water, and poison the center of community life for the Standing Rock Sioux. In Dakota/Lakota we say “mni Wiconi.” Water is life. Native American people know that water is the first medicine not just for us, but for all human beings living on this earth. The proposed Dakota Access Pipeline would transport 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day, across four states. Oil companies keep telling us that this is perfectly safe, but we’ve learned that that’s a lie: from 2012-2013 alone, there were 300 oil pipeline breaks in the state of North Dakota. With such a high chance that this pipeline will leak, I can only guess that the oil industry keeps pushing for it because they don’t care about our health and safety. It’s like they think our lives are more expendable than others’. So we, the Standing Rock Youth, are taking a stand to be the voice for our community, for our great grandparents, and for Mother Earth. Join us, and sign to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to stop the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Sincerely, Anna and the Standing Rock Youth Learn more about our campaign at rezpectourwater.com." Sign the petition

The Video:




More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

2017 Isn't '1984' – It's Stranger Than Orwell Imagined

REUTERS/Toby Melville

By John Broich, Case Western Reserve University

A week after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, George Orwell’s “1984” is the best-selling book on Amazon.com.

The hearts of a thousand English teachers must be warmed as people flock to a novel published in 1949 for ways to think about their present moment.

Orwell set his story in Oceania, one of three blocs or mega-states fighting over the globe in 1984. There has been a nuclear exchange, and the blocs seem to have agreed to perpetual conventional war, probably because constant warfare serves their shared interests in domestic control.

Oceania demands total subservience. It is a police state, with helicopters monitoring people’s activities, even watching through their windows. But Orwell emphasizes it is the “ThinkPol,” the Thought Police, who really monitor the “Proles,” the lowest 85 percent of the population outside the party elite. The ThinkPol move invisibly among society seeking out, even encouraging, thoughtcrimes so they can make the perpetrators disappear for reprogramming.

The other main way the party elite, symbolized in the mustached figurehead Big Brother, encourage and police correct thought is through the technology of the Telescreen. These “metal plaques” transmit things like frightening video of enemy armies and of course the wisdom of Big Brother. But the Telescreen can see you, too. During mandatory morning exercise, the Telescreen not only shows a young, wiry trainer leading cardio, it can see if you are keeping up. Telescreens are everywhere: They are in every room of people’s homes. At the office, people use them to do their jobs.

The story revolves around Winston Smith and Julia, who try to resist their government’s overwhelming control over facts. Their act of rebellion? Trying to discover “unofficial” truth about the past, and recording unauthorized information in a diary. Winston works at the colossal Ministry of Truth, on which is emblazoned IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. His job is to erase politically inconvenient data from the public record. A party member falls out of favor? She never existed. Big Brother made a promise he could not fulfill? It never happened.

Because his job calls on him to research old newspapers and other records for the facts he has to “unfact,” Winston is especially adept at “doublethink.” Winston calls it being “conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies… consciously to induce unconsciousness.”

Oceania: The product of Orwell’s experience

A wall painting in Dusseldorf, Germany, on Jan. 4, 1984. AP

Orwell’s setting in “1984” is inspired by the way he foresaw the Cold War – a phrase he coined in 1945 – playing out. He wrote it just a few years after watching Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin carve up the world at the Tehran and Yalta conferences. The book is remarkably prescient about aspects of the Stalinist Soviet Union, East Germany and Maoist China.

Orwell was a socialist. “1984” in part describes his fear that the democratic socialism in which he believed would be hijacked by authoritarian Stalinism. The novel grew out of his sharp observations of his world and the fact that Stalinists tried to kill him.

In 1936, a fascist-supported military coup threatened the democratically elected socialist majority in Spain. Orwell and other committed socialists from around the world, including Ernest Hemingway, volunteered to fight against the rightist rebels. Meanwhile, Hitler lent the rightists his air power while Stalin tried to take over the leftist Republican resistance. When Orwell and other volunteers defied these Stalinists, they moved to crush the opposition. Hunted, Orwell and his wife had to flee for their lives from Spain in 1937.

George Orwell at the BBC.

Back in London during World War II, Orwell saw for himself how a liberal democracy and individuals committed to freedom could find themselves on a path toward Big Brother. He worked for the BBC writing what can only be described as “propaganda” aimed at an Indian audience. What he wrote was not exactly doublethink, but it was news and commentary with a slant to serve a political purpose. Orwell sought to convince Indians that their sons and resources were serving the greater good in the war. Having written things he believed were untrue, he quit the job after two years, disgusted with himself.

Imperialism itself disgusted him. As a young man in the 1920s, Orwell had served as a colonial police officer in Burma. In a distant foreshadowing of Big Brother’s world, Orwell reviled the arbitrary and brutish role he took on in a colonial system. “I hated it bitterly,” he wrote. “In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the gray, cowed faces of the long-term convicts…”

Oceania was a prescient product of a particular biography and particular moment when the Cold War was beginning. Naturally, then, today’s world of “alternative facts” is quite different in ways that Orwell could not have imagined.

Big Brother not required
Orwell described a single-party system in which a tiny core of oligarchs, Oceania’s “inner party,” control all information. This is their chief means of controlling power. In the U.S. today, information is wide open to those who can access the internet, at least 84 percent of Americans. And while the U.S. arguably might be an oligarchy, power exists somewhere in a scrum including the electorate, constitution, the courts, bureaucracies and, inevitably, money. In other words, unlike in Oceania, both information and power are diffuse in 2017 America.

Those who study the decline in standards of evidence and reasoning in the U.S. electorate chiefly blame politicians’ concerted efforts from the 1970s to discredit expertise, degrade trust in Congress and its members, even question the legitimacy of government itself. With those leaders, institutions and expertise delegitimized, the strategy has been to replace them with alternative authorities and realities.

In 2004, a senior White House adviser suggested a reporter belonged to the “reality-based community,” a sort of quaint minority of people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.… That’s not the way the world really works anymore.”

Orwell could not have imagined the internet and its role in distributing alternative facts, nor that people would carry around Telescreens in their pockets in the form of smartphones. There is no Ministry of Truth distributing and policing information, and in a way everyone is Big Brother.

It seems less a situation that people are incapable of seeing through Big Brother’s big lies, than they embrace “alternative facts.” Some researchers have found that when some people begin with a certain worldview – for example, that scientific experts and public officials are untrustworthy – they believe their misperceptions more strongly when given accurate conflicting information. In other words, arguing with facts can backfire. Having already decided what is more essentially true than the facts reported by experts or journalists, they seek confirmation in alternative facts and distribute them themselves via Facebook, no Big Brother required.

In Orwell’s Oceania, there is no freedom to speak facts except those that are official. In 2017 America, at least among many of the powerful minority who selected its president, the more official the fact, the more dubious. For Winston, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.” For this powerful minority, freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make five.


About Today's Contributor:
John Broich, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

How Coldplay Blew The Crowd Away With One Trick

It was the adventure of a music-lovers’ dream at the latest Coldplay concert as the band’s sound swelled over “Yellow” and fans raised hands that glowed in joyful celebration of the band’s intended musical unity.

Coldplay concert-goers flipped the switch on the usual live concert show experience with a twist of the wrist using the innovative Xylobands LED Wristbands.

Beat by beat, the Xylobands LED Wristbands follow the flow of the music onstage. Coldplay’s fans raise their hands in unity and dance to the beats of the Xylobands as they pulse in unison with Chris Martin’s voice and Jonny Buckland’s strumming. The wearer syncs in with their fellow music lovers with each turn of their wrist, making the live concert onstage an intimate dance party in the seats. The multiple, flash pattern light show with RGB LED’s has the capacity to change colors along with the music, whether yellow, blue or gold. There are more colors than you can truly know inside this bit of wrist flicking magic.

And the band loves it.
Up and up went the energy as concert goers bonded over the experience of glowing wristbands that moved to the music at a recent concert. Joining wrist bands that vibrated with color, Coldplay admirers fell in love with Xylobands as the bracelet of color changed with each sway to the unique tunes onstage. Thousands of music lovers every night clipped on the slick Xylobands in anticipation. And they were not disappointed. Fans with the Xylobands were in for a treat each night. With the bands happily encircled around their wrists, fans received a profound, beautiful and bonding live music experience with the internationally-known band that loves a good tech twist. The band responds to the flashing Xylobands, amping up the energy of the live concert.

Coldplay has continued to use the stunning Xylobands that create a fabulous light show during live shows, much to their fans’ delight.

The colorful flashing bands were introduced at Coldplay’s American Express Unstaged concert in Madrid in October 2011. Since then, Coldplay fans have made it a joyful thing, with the band giving a shout out to the playful patterns of light that Xylobands brings to each and every concert.

The one-centimeter wide, radio-activated LED-equipped glow wristbands continually get the crowd to join together in an unusual way at Coldplay concerts.

With the playful wrist art of the slick Xylobands, Coldplay interacts with the crowd, having them join in with the band in a more intimate way with each song. The communally shared Xylobands bring each concert-goer further into the splendid live music of Coldplay. Concert-goers feel ignited in their passion for the music with each pulse of the glowing Xlyobands. The colorful, flashing bands are a rainbow of moving energy between users.

The latest tune-tastic accessory, Xylobands, will only cost you on average about $7. That's much less than a T-shirt or bumper sticker bought at a major venue. Coldplay’s sound comes alive in the hands of music lovers around the world with Xylobands.

The rainbow is overdue, and Xylobands LED Wristbands bring it closer to you, the music lovers.

The Xylobands USA technology team come from 35 years of experience and are simply the best.  From TLC Creative, their expertise will not only provide you with exceptional ideas for how to make your event stunning and memorable, but they will take the stress out, knowing that their experience, reliability and dedication will kick in to be sure everything goes off as you envision.

Statement by Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, in Response to President Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), the world's largest Hispanic Christian organization, which serves as a representative voice for the more than 100 million Hispanic Evangelicals assembled in over 40,000 U.S. churches, made the following statement regarding President Donald J. Trump's executive orders pertaining to immigration and the building of a wall:

"While I have had differences of opinion with the Trump Administration on how exactly to achieve our shared goal of securing our national borders, we at the NHCLC have made ourselves available to the Trump Administration throughout this process and have made our position clear.

First, when President Trump builds his wall, he must also - and as passionately - build bridges with the Latino community. Secondly, we have made it clear that we will vigorously oppose any action that would forcibly remove the 11 million undocumented people living, working and raising their families in the United States with the exception of criminals, drug dealers and others who bring shame and pain on our community.

I am grateful that our concerns have been met with both an open mind and a willingness to work together. In fact, after a call with the Trump transition team in December—a call organized by the NHCLC and which included other Hispanic heads of major denominations and networks—then President-elect Trump made it clear that he would not oppose DACA but would find a way to assist our young people.

I agree with President Trump that securing our borders is critically important to ensuring the safety of all Americans. I also agree with the administration that the American people have a right to determine who comes into our country, and to demand that our laws are respected in the process. However, our goal and our continued focus at the NHCLC will be to ensure these policies are always balanced by a respect for the sanctity of all life and the well-being of the immigrant."

NHCLC/CONEL is the world's largest Hispanic Christian organization, which serves as a representative voice for the more than 100 million Hispanic Evangelicals assembled in over 40,000 U.S. churches and hundreds of thousands of additional congregations spread worldwide throughout the Spanish-speaking diaspora. 

SOURCE: National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

#SpicerFacts: How The White House's Relationship With The press Will Play Out

Click here to see Tweet on Twitter

By Jon Herbert, Keele University

Journalists would have anticipated the first press conference of the Trump presidency with some trepidation. Not only had his briefing at Trump Tower as president-elect been something of a shambles as Trump excoriated some journalists and ignored others, but the whole election campaign had been traumatic for many. Reporters had been submitted to ritual humiliation at Trump rallies, ushered through baying crowds to be labelled “liars” and “disgusting” by a candidate who did not seem overly burdened by the concept of truth himself.

But campaigning is different from governing. Journalists, who had endured a storm of criticism from Trump’s transition team, were hoping for a transformation of campaign Trump into a more presidential Trump – or perhaps a press liaison operation sympathetic to the press’ needs.

The first press “briefing” from White House press secretary Sean Spicer, delivered the day after Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States made it clear that this transformation has not happened. In a six-minute tirade, Spicer told journalists why their coverage of the inauguration had been wrong, told them what they should be reporting and left the stage with no opportunities for questions and answers.

Any impression that a mutual trust might be nurtured between presidency and media – or even that a deal for mutual benefit might be negotiated – was shattered. Journalists’ worst fears, articulated widely and openly during the transition, are now realised and both sides are now digging in for an extended battle.

Written out
From Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency at the turn of the 20th century onward, presidents have traditionally nurtured a relationship with journalists. Franklin Roosevelt held briefings in the Oval Office and Jack Kennedy traded on his own journalistic experiences in talking to the press. The relationship was symbiotic and mutually beneficial; presidencies broadcast their messages to the public and the media had stories and pictures to run.

But the relationship has soured since the 1970s – and the Trump presidency may come to represent the logical conclusion of a half-century’s development in presidential relations with the media.

The disillusionment of the media with the presidency is well-documented. The Watergate scandal and misinformation over the Vietnam War caused journalists to examine their assumptions about the trustworthiness of the country’s commander-in-chief.

But the media still needs the presidency. The presidency, on the other hand has long struggled to wriggle free of the media’s grasp. Frustrated by increasingly negative coverage from mainstream outlets, presidents pull away from the media over their term, offering fewer press conferences as their term develops. Obama’s administration built a reputation for unusual levels of secrecy due to its refusal to release information in response to press requests. Worse, administration threats to prosecute journalists for not revealing their sources permanently tarnished Obama’s standing with the media and generated many hostile stories.

During George W. Bush’s administration, journalist Ryan Lizza offered the term “pressless presidency” to capture the Bush team’s assessment of the press, not as a Fourth Estate with a legitimate role to check governmental and presidential power, but as just another interest group to be serviced.

The holy grail now for an administration is to bypass the hard questions and unforgiving judgements of the Washington media to reach the people directly. Each new technology seems to offer this potential. Obama attempted to bypass the Washington press corps through use of Reddit and YouTube, while Trump has done more than most to cut loose while calculating that he can use other means to communicate – Twitter being his favourite medium.

US vs them
Instead of working with the media, Trump has made it integral to his core message: his anti-establishment status. Trump’s rhetoric relies upon simple oppositions – and the media has been particularly important in this. In Trump’s populist rhetoric the media have become part of giant conspiracy of politicians, business and media working against the interests of the American people. And the press makes an excellent target – public trust in the media has dropped precipitously.

Declining trust in the news media. Gallup, CC BY

Usually there is something of a “honeymoon period” as the two sides develop their relationships and work out a basis of cooperation. Both the incoming administration and the media usually focus on appointments and leading policy proposals. But instead of trying to build that relationship for mutual advantage early on, Trump’s team is launching a full frontal assault on the media’s credibility. The Trump team is “pressless” from the start.

Not only is Trump to be pressless, then, but the logic of this position extends to discrediting the media as a competitor in setting the agenda or even describing reality. When Spicer highlights the delayed nomination of Mike Pompeo as CIA director and tells the press: “That’s what you guys should be writing and covering,” the attempt to control what is considered news is obvious. But this position extends to portraying the media as a malevolent force. Accusing the media of “dishonesty” allows the administration to claim a new role.

To quote Spicer: “We’re going to hold the press accountable as well.” The administration has appointed itself the guardian of truth against the evildoers of the press. Theatrical denials of the media’s legitimacy suit the administration very well: much as Trump’s tweets have done before, Spicer’s press briefing made the tension between the media and the new administration the main news story. The administration portrays itself as the insurgency against the establishment. As long as the media continue to run the conflict stories, Trump will remain happy to trigger them.

High-risk strategy
But this approach carries substantial risks. As a rocky transition focused on Putin’s influence over the election and Trump’s conflicts of interest proved, the new administration has not found a way to control the media agenda. Trump’s familiar campaign technique of picking fights over Twitter has served to distract from the worst stories but has not refocused attention on the presidency’s priorities.

The stories in each policy area are of uncertainty and confusion around the administration’s direction and the overall image of Trump’s presidency has been damaged from the start.

So far, the media has expressed substantial doubt that the Trump administration has a clear direction or clarity over priorities, a claim reinforced by Trump’s own tendency to make bold, incredible and contradictory statements. Attacking the press is a serious – and unforced – error that will generate negative coverage. Trump and Spicer’s calculation, that the new president’s support can endure a relentless stream of negative stories, is an extraordinary gamble. It relies on Trump’s supporters resisting the influence of negative media coverage, while the administration communicates with them directly.

Without doubt, there is much to suggest that some partisans will remain loyal to their president amid media criticism. News accessed only through selective social media “bubbles” is likely to reinforce this effect. However, experience suggests that Republicans will not be blindly loyal. As Nixon and George W. Bush discovered, Republicans can turn on their own.

As the administration’s credibility falls, the same rhetoric from Trump blaming media demons for Americans’ perceived plight will sound less like a promise of conflict, victory and transformation and more like excuse-making in the face of under-achievement. Trump attacks on those merely trying to report on his presidency will come to look like the product of a paranoid mindset.


About Today's Contributor:
Jon Herbert, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Director of Learning and Teaching, Keele University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

More Donald Trump Related Stories

Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...