Door de economische aanval van Trump op China komt het neofascisme op in de politiek van
de VS, waar noch het congres, noch de rechterlijke macht ook maar
enige interesse tonen om de presidentiële macht in te perken. De
schrijver van het CounterPunch artikel dat hieronder is
opgenomen, Anthony Dimaggio, stelt dat ‘Trumps unieke vorm van
neofascisme eerst naar de voorgrond trad toen Trump de media
onderuithaalde en beschuldigde van verraad…… Ben het wat dat
betreft niet met Dimaggio eens, immers de VS was al onder Obama op
weg om een politiestaat te worden en toonde wat dat betreft al
kenmerken van fascisme, neem alleen al de militarisering van de
politie en de inzet op totale controle van de burgers, iets dat zich
hier overigens ook voltrekt al is het op een wat langzamer
manier…… 

Wat betreft de massamedia in de VS (en elders in het westen) moet ik zeggen dat deze inderdaad onbetrouwbaar zijn, al is het op een andere manier dan Trump bedoelt, neem de berichtgeving voorafgaand en tijdens de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië en dan gaat het alleen over deze eeuw….. Toch moet ik toegeven dat veel stemmingmakerij tegen Trump niet echt van een geweldig niveau was, om het maar voorzichtig te stellen….

Uiteraard
zijn de handelsoorlog en de woorden die Trump daarbij gebruikt van een
uitgesproken fascistoïde karakter, zo noemt hij de Chinese leider
Xi Jinping een vijand van de VS….. Eén van de middelen die hij
gebruikt, of beter misbruikt is de International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) uit
1977, waarmee men drugssmokkelaars en terroristen te lijf kan gaan en
in uitzonderlijke situaties een misdadig regime kan isoleren, echter
niet om onenigheid over onderlinge handel te beslechten…..

Overigens laten de leugens van Trump over Latijns-Amerikaanse vluchtelingen niets aan de verbeelding over, ronduit fascistische leugens…… Gisteren liet Trump nog weten dat de ‘US Space Force’ de VS het machtigste land in de ruimte moet maken, waar hij zelfs stelde dat de VS zich het recht zal voorbehouden om satellieten van VS onwelgevallige landen te vernietigen….. (BBC World Service radio bracht dit bericht afgelopen nacht)

Trump
doet in feite wat eerder fascistische regimes deden die uit waren op
expansie* en meer macht: landen valselijk beschuldigen
om daarna een poging te doen met behulp van de CIA een gewelddadige opstand op te starten in zo’n land, met de opzet het regime ten val te brengen…… Als dat niet lukt blijft altijd de mogelijkheid over een dergelijk land binnen te vallen en daarmee heeft de VS al een
heel lange ervaring…….. Nu hoeft de VS niet per se een land
binnen te vallen om een VS gezind regime te installeren, zo heeft ook
Trump bedacht: een handelsoorlog en economische oorlogvoering kunnen
al veel in gang zetten (zelfs een roep om regime verandering uit ontevredenheid bij het volk), al lukt dat gelukkig niet altijd, zie
Syrië,Venezuela en Iran. Helaas vallen door deze economische terreur wel veel mensenlevens, zo heeft de economische oorlog tegen Venezuela al aan meer dan 40.000 mensen het leven gekost, mensen die in feite zijn vermoord door de VS……

Dan nog dit: het neoliberalisme dat ook in de EU hoogtij viert, is niets anders dan een vorm van fascisme, dit nog naast het feit dat een aantal EU landen in feite al fascistisch worden geregeerd, neem Hongarije, Polen en Roemenië (gelukkig zijn de fascistische Oostenrijkse en Italiaanse regering gevallen)…….

Dimaggio
heeft verder een uitstekend artikel geschreven over wat ik de
‘fascistische Trump doctrine’ zou willen noemen. Wel verontrustend
als je bedenkt dat de VS afgeladen is met kernwapens, waarover Trump
zich afvroeg waarom ze niet gebruikt worden ‘als we ze toch
hebben……’ 

AUGUST
28, 2019

Trump’s
Trade War and the Emerging Corporatist-Fascist State

by ANTHONY
DIMAGGIO

Drawing
by Nathaniel St. Clair

President
Donald Trump’s fit over China speaks to the rise of neofascism in
American politics, at a time when neither Congress nor the courts are
showing any interest in rolling back presidential power. Trump’s
unique brand of neofascism first emerged in the form of his attempt
to crack down on journalistic critics for “treason,”
and via the onset of his white ethno-nationalist, which
he declared via
a “state of emergency” that allowed him to criminalize immigrants
in “concentration camp”-style detainment settings, and to
confiscate taxpayer funds to build a wall with Mexico that was never
authorized by Congress. This nascent fascism is quickly morphing into
full-blown fascism, via Trump’s efforts to dictate the rules of
investment to U.S. corporations, and in relation to his emerging
trade war with China.

In
late August, Trump announced he
would intensify the trade war against China, with the imposition of
an additional 5 percent duty on $250 billion in Chinese goods,
reaching a 30 percent tax by October 1st, coupled with a 15 percent
tax – over his previous 10 percent planned rate – on another $300
billion of imports, to take effect on September 1st. The major
controversy is not Trump’s saber rattling with China, but his
attempt to unilaterally require that American corporations no longer
do business in China. As Trump announcedon
Twitter, “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to
immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including
bringing our companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”
This “order” was political in motivation, in line with Trump’s
“America First” agenda, and as reflected in his announcement that
“We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far better off
without them.”

For
those who would defend the neofascist in chief for making merely
“tongue and cheek” comments by “ordering” U.S. corporations
around, the president was having none of it. He elaborated via
Twitter that his mandate to American corporations was permissible
under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a law
the New
York Times reports “has
been used mainly to target terrorists” and “drug traffickers,”
and “originally meant to enable a president to isolate criminal
regimes, not sever economic ties with a major trading partner over a
tariff dispute.” In a sign of just how much further Trump has come
from the authoritarian politics of the Bush-“war on terror”
years, George W. Bush’s former international economic
advisor warned that
“Any invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
in these circumstances and for these purposes would be an abuse…
The act is intended to address extraordinary national security
threats and true national emergencies, not fits of presidential
pique.” But Trump was not deterred. In relation to his “emergency”
powers, he claimed:
“For all the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to
what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc, try
looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!”

It
should be no surprise that Trump sees this as a “case closed”
issue of presidential authority, considering his longstanding
contempt for the rule of law, and his routine dismissal of the courts
and Congress, both of which he has shown little interest in
consulting with regard to his presidential acts and orders. This
president believes in ruling by decree, and he isn’t going to let
inconvenient obstacles like Constitutionalism and judicial or
Congressional oversight get in his way.

A
closer look at the 1977 law that Trump cites reveals that it does, in
fact, grant presidents the power to regulate foreign commerce in
times of emergency. But the law is not what the president claims it
to be. It allows the
executive to “prohibit” the “importation or exportation” of
goods and “any transactions in foreign exchange” “in which any
foreign country or national thereof has any interest,” during
periods of “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as related to
national security and the economy.

The
key point of emphasis here is that this power exists during periods
of “unusual and extraordinary threat,” which would not under any
rational interpretation include simple trade disputes between
competing heads of state. Nor would it include trade disputes
occurring under an economy which Trump himself heralded last
week as “strong and good,” and commentedwithin
the last month that it is the “best it has ever been.”

Trump
would have his cake and eat it too, speaking out of both sides of his
mouth by declaring a national economic emergency on the one hand,
while celebrating the nation’s economic vitality and growth on the
other. But make no mistake: he realizes there is a very real danger
of an emerging recession as a result of his escalating trade war with
China. The problem is that he is too arrogant and vain to ever admit
that rising economic instability is a result of his own actions, and
to reverse course to avoid a possible recession.

In
his growing desperation and in response to a self-imposed “crisis,”
Trump has taken to demonizing domestic political figures. Consider,
for example, his attack the
head of the Federal Reserve (FED), Jay Powell, after he refused to
immediately lower interest rates to pull the economy back from
further volatility, following numerous hits to the stock market due
to the onset of Trump’s trade war. Trump hyper-ventilated on
Twitter, asking:
“who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” following
Powell’s announcement that the Federal Reserve was limited in its
powers to stimulate the economy due to the uncertainty and volatility
imposed by Trump’s trade war.

The
risk of a declining economy to Trump’s political future shouldn’t
be dismissed. A president with a 40 percent approval rating cannot
afford to lose much by way of public support if he hopes to be
re-elected in 2020. And a full-blown economic recession will almost
certainly mean a significant decline in Trump’s already tenuous job
approval, likely putting him out of reach of a second term if
economic conditions continue to deteriorate in late 2019 and 2020.
Despite Trump’s bloviating about enemies at home and abroad, the
ultimate irony in this case is that he is his own worst enemy, and an
emerging recession, if it does come, will be of his own making.

Recent
political events do suggest that the United States is entering a
state of emergency, although it is not one that’s driven by an
economic downturn. Rather, the cancer that afflicts the nation is
neofascism. By neofascism, I am referring specifically to a system of
politics that is marked by extreme nationalism, racism and
xenophobia, authoritarian contempt for the rule of law, and most
recently, to active government efforts to impose new “rules of the
game” on the capitalist economy, contrary to “free market”
neoliberal principles. This final aspect of fascism – call it
corporatist fascism, was popularized in Nazi Germany under the Third
Reich, and places government at the helm in terms of making major
investment decisions for private corporations.

U.S.
capitalism has long been marked by an authoritarian organizational
structure, via corporate hierarchies that exercise power at the
expense of working Americans having a say in the workplace, while
deterring unionism and democracy in the workplace. But corporatist
neofascism, of the variety that Trump seeks to introduce, goes beyond
anything we have seen in modern history. Government has historically
been the junior partner in reinforcing the plutocratic power of the
business class over politics. It is not, under “free market”
capitalism, a legitimate guiding force when it comes to dictating the
terms of investment to business and the private sector.

Most
Americans are reluctant to apply the term “fascism” to Trump’s
politics because of longstanding aversion to
the notion that the U.S. could ever become a fascist nation.

The
“It Can’t Happen Here” ethos was well understood more than 80
years ago by novelist Sinclair Lewis, meaning that Americans have
historically been blind to the neofascistic elements of politics
unfolding before their very eyes. But ultimately, the
“fascism-not-fascism” dichotomy is extremely problematic,
dangerous, and self-defeating for those who still value principles of
democracy and limited government. If Americans wait to discuss the
“is it fascism?” question until after a neofascist state has been
fully institutionalized, that debate will be merely academic, and
utterly meaningless. The time to discuss a fascist threat is as it is
emerging, not afterit
has been implemented.

Time
is growing short for those who would reel in Trump’s runaway
neofascistic policies, and in terms of reestablishing the rule of
law. Congress has it within its authority to countermand Trump’s
efforts to impose corporatist-neofascism on the U.S. economy. The
very emergency law that Trump cites states that “the president, in
every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress before
exercising any of the authorities granted” in the emergency law,
and that he must “consult regularly with the Congress so long as
such authorities are exercised.” He must provide regular updates to
the legislative branch on how such emergency powers are being used.
Which means that Congress is at liberty to reverse the “state of
emergency” Trump has declared by determining that he has abused his
political powers by pursuing an authoritarian, self-aggrandizing
policy that grants the president unprecedented authority to impose a
corporatist-neofascist regime.

Congress
should immediately begin impeachment proceedings, under the grounds
that Trump is unfit to be commander in chief, following his
recent claim that
he is God’s “chosen one” with regard to dictating trade policy,
and his efforts to claim dictatorial emergency powers in relation to
managing his trade war with China. Since, Trump’s neofascist
politics have received little pushback thus far, there is growing
concern that his recent trade actions will only further empower the
president moving forward. There is little standing in this
president’s way, short of legislative or judicial action, as he
seeks to destroy what remains of the “checks and balances” system
under the U.S. Constitution. Short of impeachment or a national
strike and mass protests across the country, Trump’s neofascist
politics are likely to intensify in the future.

Join
the debate on Facebook

More
articles by: ANTHONY
DIMAGGIO

Anthony
DiMaggio is
an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He
holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the
newly released: The
Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern
Era (Paperback,
2018), and Selling
War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media,
and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be
reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

======================================

* Over
expansie gesproken: het psychopathische beest Trump bood Denemarken
onlangs aan om Groenland te kopen, te belachelijk voor woorden, echter deze mafkloot was zo pissig over de afwijzing door Denemarken, dat hij een gepland bezoek heeft afgezegd……..