Connect with us

Features

WILL TRUMP BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RUNNING IN 2024?

Published

on

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

On August 19, University of Chicago Law Professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, both members of the right-wing Federalist Society, published a paper, to the effect that, “based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, if the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. Trump is no longer eligible to (run for) the office of the Presidency”.

At that time, this interpretation of the 14th Amendment was regarded by the media and the legal community as mere conjecture, with no real teeth to prevent Trump’s presidential candidacy.However, since then, there has been increasing momentum amongst the legal community, confirming the constitutional argument that Trump could be disbarred from the presidency.

The latest opinion came from Lawrence Tribe, Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at Harvard University, Founder of the American Constitution Society and deemed one of the nation’s foremost authorities on Constitutional Law.

Professor Tribe said on CNN’s State of the Union last Sunday: “The people who wrote the 14th Amendment were not fools. They realized that if those people who tried to overturn the country, who tried to get rid of our peaceful transitions of power are again put in power, that would be end of the nation, the end of democracy”.

Michael J. Luttig, one of the country’s best known conservative jurists and key adviser to former Vice-President Pence said, in an interview with the Washington Post, “250 years ago, we had a revolution against the king, created a new nation and a new Constitution to govern the nation…. The former president attempted to overturn an election that he had lost fair and square, incited the attack on January 6 in order to prevent the Joint Session (of Congress} from counting the electoral votes to determine the presidency of the United States of America”…. If he runs again, “Donald Trump, in the end, will be allowed to make a mockery out of the Constitution of the United States and the Rule of Law”.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a self-executing provision of the US Constitution, a provision that can be enforced without the aid of a legislative enactment, like a conviction.

“The former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and the resulting attack on the US Capitol, place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again”, wrote Tribe and Luttig.

The final ruling will probably be determined by the Supreme Court, which gives Trump a 6/3 advantage. However, if the Justices rule not on Party lines but on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and their conscience, as they did on the 2020 election disputes, there is every chance that the majority of the Court will uphold the provisions of the 14th Amendment and rule that Trump is not qualified to run for or hold any public office in the United States in the future.

A lawsuit has already been filed by Noah Bookbinder, President of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in Colorado which states: “Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the (Colorado State) ballot. January 6 was an unprecedented attack, exactly the kind of event, against which the framers of the 14th Amendment built such protections. You don’t break the glass unless there’s an emergency”.

With 13 months and four criminal trials to go before the November 2024 election, there will surely be many more lawsuits, filed by secretaries of state of Red and Blue states, to disqualify Trump from running.

Trump himself is currently providing the best evidence for his own disqualification with his post-arrest rantings, at TV interviews and campaign rallies. These may prove to be more effective than any legal interpretation of a constitutional amendment.

Trump is every prosecutor’s dream defendant, and every defense lawyer’s nightmare. He contradicts himself and admits to the many charges against him almost every time he opens his mouth at campaign rallies and interviews.

Last week, in an address at a Washington DC Pray Vote Stand summit, Trump stated that Joe Biden was “cognitively impaired” and would “lead the country into World War II if re-elected”. World War II ended in 1945. In the same speech, Trump said that he was “ahead of Obama in the 2024 election polls”, mixing up Presidents Obama and Biden. He also said that Obama was his opponent in 2016, “With Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won”. Hillary Clinton was his opponent in 2016.

President Biden may be 80 years old, but compared to the mental and moral wasteland that is the 77 year-old Trump, he’s an intellectual giant, who gave a stirring oration at the United Nations General Assembly last week.

At an exclusive interview with Kristen Welker, aired on NBC Meet the Press on Sunday, September 17, Trump contradicted both himself and the positions taken by defense lawyers on numerous occasions. A few extracts:

He declined to answer the question posed by Ms. Welker on how he spent the afternoon of the insurrection on January 6, 2021. “I am not going to tell you. I’ll tell people later at an appropriate time”. Trump’s aides have already confirmed, under oath, that he had sequestered himself in a room off the Oval Office to watch the violence on TV. It took him 187 minutes to order the insurrectionists to stop the violence and to go home.

About the alleged fraudulent 2020 election, Trump said that “It was my decision, that the 2020 election was rigged, there was no question about it”. A statement in direct contradiction of his defense lawyers’ mendacious argument that he was merely going by the advice of his White House counsel, who convinced him that the election had been rigged.

In truth, his own Attorney General, William Barr, and many White House aides have already given evidence on oath that they had told Trump that there was no evidence of election fraud.

When asked about the mishandling of government top-secret documents stored at unsecured Mar a Lago locations, Trump said, “They were my documents. I could have fought them. I didn’t have to give them back” (to the National Archives). A total legal delusion. Those documents were the property of the US government.

When asked if he would testify to this effect, he said, “Sure, I’m going to – I’ll testify”. Trump’s defense lawyers will never let him get a mile near the witness box. He covers up one lie with another, he’ll be found guilty of perjury within minutes.

The impeachment of President Biden, proposed recently by Republican Speaker McCarthy, was based on minor charges against his son, Hunter. McCarthy also talked vaguely about “other high crimes” of the “Biden Crime Family” without a vestige of facts or evidence. He denies this is retaliation, the classic quid quo pro – “They did it to us, we do it to them”.

The Republican Congress recently accused the Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice of showing a double standard in the treatment of the respective crimes of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump. Sure, there was a double standard. The crimes under investigation of Hunter Biden, private citizen, were three gun-related offences. The crimes of former President Trump, indicted, arrested and released on conditional bail, are espionage, sedition, obstruction of justice, sexual assaults and financial fraud. A ridiculous comparison. Apples and oranges, many, many rotten oranges.

Trump claimed that the Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi was somehow responsible for the January 6 insurrection. This statement is preposterous, even by Trump standards. Pelosi was one of the two main targets (the first being Vice-President Pence) of the insurrectionists. She did not have the authority to call for immediate Capitol Police and National Guard reinforcements to quell the violence. Only Trump did. And he didn’t, for 187 minutes, in spite of desperate calls from Vice-President Pence, Speaker Pelosi and Republican Minority House Leader McCarthy.

When asked about abortion rights, Trump said the Republican positions were “terrible”, though he held these same positions during his presidency. In fact, he once announced at a rally that Democrats allowed abortion after childbirth, a typically moronic statement, as such an act ceases to be abortion. Killing an infant is murder.

He now seeks to portray himself as a “deal maker”, making vague and confused comments on the “number of weeks after which he would ban abortion”, and whether it’s a decision that should be “left to the state or the federal government”. He is softening his stance on abortion because he has realized it’s going to be a major factor in the 2024 election.

Abortion is a decision to be made by the pregnant woman (or the parents, where relevant, of a pregnant minor) and her doctor. It is certainly not a decision for old white geezers, who barely know what an uterus is, who demand Victorian sexual morals of others, while being lecherously liberal of their own.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is seeking an order to prevent Trump from making inflammatory, intimidating and threatening remarks against witnesses, prosecutors and judges. “Through his statements, the defendant threatens to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool”.

Trump has shown no signs of toning down his comments, even though his arrest and release were on conditional bail. He keeps repeating his lies that “the FBI and Justice Department are weaponized”, that “President Biden is crooked” and Special Counsel Smith is “deranged”. He even claimed that Judge Chutkan was a Trump hater, and insists that she recuse herself.

“They Leak, Lie & Sue, and they won’t allow me to SPEAK”, Trump wrote on his social media. Special Counsel “Smith wants to take away my rights to speak freely and openly under the First Amendment”. His lawyers should advise him that specific threats, especially those with an intent of causing bodily harm and endangering lives, are not protected by the First Amendment.

Trump’s desperate defense strategy is obvious. Left without any restraints, he will order his thugs (the process has already begun) to send death threats to witnesses, prosecutors and their families. He will poison the jury pools, so that a unanimous verdict may not be possible. The judge may have to call a mistrial, which he will trumpet to his base as proof of his innocence, a triumph.

Judge Chutkan, the presiding judge over the case against Trump on the alleged felony of sedition in the January 6 insurrection, had imposed certain conditions on Trump on his release on bail. Trump has already flouted these conditions.

Special Counsel Smith has now filed a request for a “narrowly tailored gag order” on Trump, limiting how he would be able to publicly comment on any of the cases against him. However, knowing Trump and the certainty that he will violate such a gag order, Judge Chutkan may well have to reconsider more Draconian measures to restrain Trump from interfering in the judicial process in the future, up to and including imprisonment.



Features

Buddhist Approach to Human Challenges

Published

on

Life, by its very nature, invariably presents a myriad of challenges that are fundamental to the human experience. The various social ills that afflict humanity cannot be understood without recognizing the profound human dynamics at play. Navigating these challenges according to Buddhism involves shifting from attempting to control external circumstances to mastering one’s internal responses. Central to these challenges are certain detrimental drives stemming from pernicious distortions in the functioning of the human mind.

According to Buddhism, human suffering—both on a personal and societal level—arises from three unwholesome roots: greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. These roots manifest primarily as the unbridled proliferation of these negative states, serving as the foundation for our conduct. The Buddhist perspective offers profound insights for confronting these difficulties by emphasizing the nature of suffering, known as dukkha. Buddhism teaches that suffering (dukkha) is an inevitable part of life and is fueled by greed, hatred, and ignorance or delusion. This approach promotes mental transformation through mindfulness, ethical living, and the cultivation of wisdom, empowering individuals to confront their struggles with clarity and resilience.

Furthermore, accepting that suffering and difficulty are inherent parts of the human experience—while expecting life to be free of challenges—is, in itself, a cause of suffering. It is also important to recognize that all situations, whether good or bad, are temporary. This understanding helps reduce anxiety when facing difficult times, as these will eventually pass, and it prevents possessiveness during happy moments. Cultivating mindfulness (sati) and living in the present moment without dwelling on the past or worrying about the future is essential.

Understanding that all things—emotions, situations, relationships, and physical bodies—are constantly changing and in a state of flux helps reduce the fear of loss and provides comfort during difficult times, ensuring that we know pain will pass. Moreover, recognizing that the self, or ego, is not a fixed entity minimizes selfish grasping, arrogance, and the tendency to perceive challenges as personal attacks.

At the core of many human challenges lie the three unwholesome mental qualities identified by Buddhism: greed (raga), hatred (dovesa), and ignorance or delusion (avijja or moha). These states of mind serve as obstacles to spiritual progress and underlie a spectrum of harmful thoughts and actions. The Buddha employed powerful metaphors to illustrate these forces, referring to them as the three poisons or fires that ignite suffering and trap beings in the cycle of samsara.

Greed leads to insatiable desires that obscure our awareness of others’ needs, creating a cycle of frustration. Greed encompasses all forms of appetite, such as desire, lust, craving, and longing, manifesting in both physical and mental forms. It embodies the concept of grasping, leading to clinging and an inability to let go. As an unwholesome mental state, greed can become insatiable and inexhaustible. People are often drawn to pleasant things, and no amount of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or mental objects can satisfy their desires. In their intense thirst for possession or gratification of desire, individuals may become trapped in the wheel of samsara, overlooking the needs of marginalized groups based on religion and ethnicity (as noted by Piyadassi Thera). Those who overcome greed realize that all mundane pleasures are fleeting and transient. In a society driven by consumerism, people may find themselves endlessly chasing after things of little value, becoming enslaved by them.

Hatred is another unwholesome mental state that fosters division and conflict, distancing us from genuine relationships. It encompasses unwholesome mental states such as ill will, enmity, hostility, and prejudice. Hatred can be subtle, lying dormant in a person’s mind until it finds expression in unexpected moments. This destructive emotion can degenerate into mass-scale violence and bloodshed within society. Today, hatred and hostility against minorities based on religion and ethnicity are prevalent in many countries. People are often targeted by bigotry and hate, leading to a rise in antagonistic and derogatory behavior toward certain religious and ethnic groups. Hatred, enmity, and retaliation do not foster spiritual well-being; rather, they vitiate our own minds. Buddhists are encouraged to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). Greed and hatred, coupled with ignorance, are the chief causes of the evils that pervade this deluded world. As noted by Narada, “The enemy of the whole world is lust (greed), through which all evils come to living beings. This lust, when obstructed by some cause, transforms into wrath.”

The most profound of these afflictions, ignorance (avijja) or delusion (moha), clouds our judgment and obscures our capacity for understanding, causing us to harm ourselves and others through misguided actions. Addressing bhikkhus, the Buddha declared, ” I do not perceive any single hindrance other than the hindrance of ignorance by which mankind is obstructed, and for so long as in samsara, it is indeed through the hindrance of ignorance that humankind is obstructed and for a long time runs on, wanders in samsara. No other single thing exists like the hindrance of ignorance or delusion, which obstructs humankind and make wander forever. This unwholesome mindset generates negative speech, actions, and thoughts, perpetuating our own suffering. As stated in the Dhammapada, “All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; if one speaks or acts with an evil mind, suffering follows.”

Buddhism urges us to go beyond merely addressing the symptoms of our problems. Instead, it invites us to explore the roots of our suffering and examine how greed, hatred, and ignorance manifest in our lives. By uncovering these sources of distress, we can cultivate essential qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness (metta), and acceptance. These virtues are crucial for ethical engagement with significant societal issues, including environmental challenges and social inequality.

In a world marked by material prosperity and emotional chaos, many individuals may feel lost or overwhelmed. The teachings of the Buddha remain relevant today, reminding us that the origins of our struggles often reside within our own minds. By practising ethical self-discipline and steering clear of destructive emotions like jealousy, anger, and arrogance, we can transform our experiences and relationships.

Buddhism teaches that cultivating wholesome mental qualities is essential for spiritual advancement. The positive counterparts to the three unwholesome states are non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adosa), and non-delusion (amoha). These virtues represent not merely the absence of negativity but also the active presence of beneficial qualities such as generosity (dana), loving kindness (metta), and wisdom (panna). Each of these six mental states serves as a foundation for both personal growth and societal harmony.

Human beings are often tempted by moral transgressions rooted in unwholesome qualities. Actions driven by greed, hatred and ignorance require wisdom and mindful awareness to overcome them, allowing us to see the interconnectedness of all beings and act accordingly.

As we strive to abandon these unwholesome states of mind and cultivate awareness, we contribute positively to our lives and the broader world. By embracing Buddhist teachings, we learn that transforming our minds can significantly impact our experiences and the lives of those around us. Through this mindful practice, we can aspire to create a more compassionate, harmonious existence, transcending the limitations of unwholesome mental states and fostering a deeper connection with ourselves and others.

by Dr. Chandradasa Nanayakkara

 

Continue Reading

Features

How does the Buddha differ?

Published

on

Buddhism, perhaps, is not a religion if the definition of religion is strictly applied. However, by an extension of that definition, as well as by consensus, Buddhism is considered a religion and is the fourth largest religion with about half a billion followers worldwide. Of the four great religions in the world, Christianity is still way ahead with 2.6 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.9 billion and Hinduism with 1.2 billion followers. In most Western Christian countries church attendances are on the decline whilst the numbers following Islam are increasing with Islamic youth displaying signs of increasing religious ardour. There are recent reports that Buddhism has also joined the ranks of shrinking religions. Is this cause for concern? Is this happening by the very nature of Buddhism?

Hinduism, the world’s oldest living religion rooted in the Indus Valley Civilization and dating back at least four millennia, is considered to have evolved from ancient cultural and religious practices than being founded by a single individual, unlike the other three religions. The Buddha differs from Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed in many ways, the most important being that there is no higher power involved in what the Buddha discovered.

Jesus Christ is considered the ‘Son of God’ and Christianity is built on the life, resurrection and teachings of Christ with emphasis on the belief in one God expressed through the Trinity: God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is no room for questioning the words of the Almighty passed through the Son.

Islam, with its Five Pillars of faith, frequent daily prayers, charity, fasting during Ramadan and pilgrimage to Mecca, is founded on revelations made by Almighty God, Allah, to Mohammed, the last of his Prophets, which are recorded in verse in the Holy Book, Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be verbatim words of God and the unaltered, final revelation. This leaves even less room for questioning.

In contrast, the Buddha achieved everything by himself with no help from any higher source. Rebelling against some of the practices in the religion to which he was born and seeking a solution to the ever-pervading sense of dissatisfaction, Prince Siddhartha embarked on a journey of discovery that culminated in Enlightenment, under the Bodhi tree on the full moon day of the month of Vesak.

Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma as traditionally referred to by followers, encompasses the concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksha and Dharma with a creator Brahma, preserver Vishnu and destroyer Shiva. In addition, there are multitudes of gods serving various functions and there are ritual practices of Puja (worship), Bhakti (devotion), Yajna (sacrificial rites) in addition to meditation and Yoga. The one thing that has blighted Hinduism, on top of sacrifices, is the caste system. The uncompromising attitude of Brahmins led to the formation Sikhism as well, long after the establishment of Buddhism.

Prince Siddhartha studied under eminent teachers of the day, of which there were many, but realised the limitations of their knowledge. Having already given up the extreme of luxury, he went to the other extreme of self-deprivation which after a search for six years, he realised also was not the solution to the problem. Exploring through his mind he realised the truth and came up with the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. He shunned extremes and proposed the Middle Path which seems to hold sway in many spheres of life, even today.

Buddha’s greatest achievement was the analysis of the mind and scientists are only now establishing the accuracy of the concepts the Buddha elucidated, not with the help of supernatural powers or sophisticated machinery at the disposal of modern-day scientists but by the exploration of the mind by turning the searchlight inwards.

Having discovered the cause of universal dissatisfaction and the path to overcome it, the Buddha walked across vast swathes of India, most likely barefoot, preaching to many, in terms they could understand, as evidenced by the different suttas illustrating the same fact in different ways; to the intelligent it was a short explanation but for others it was a more detailed discussion.

In sharp contrast to all other religious leaders, the Buddha encouraged discussion and challenge before acceptance. What the Buddha stated in the Kalama Sutta, acceptance only after conviction, laid the foundation for scientific thinking.

The Buddha, being a human not supernatural, never claimed infallibility as evidenced by his agreement with his father King Suddhodana that ordaining his son Rahula without permission was a mistake and took steps to ensure that this did not happen again. In fact, the entire Vinaya Pitaka is not an arbitrary rule book laid down by the Buddha, but are the rules the Buddha laid down for the Sangha, based on errant actions by Bhikkhus. Long before the legal concept of retroactive justice was established, the Buddha implemented it in the Vinaya Pitaka.

In an interesting video on YouTube titled “Nature of Buddhism”, Bhante Dhammika of Australia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8WfGJq2FI) discusses some unique aspects of Buddhism. Some religions are ‘high demand’ religions where the followers are required to strictly adhere to certain rules which is not the case in Buddhism and he opines that this has led to the gentleness of Buddhists, at times leading to even being lackadaisical! Interestingly, as a widely travelled person, he describes his personal experience of the change of people’s attitudes on going from places with Buddhist influence to others. Speaking of Sri Lanka, where he spent many years, he commends the traditional hospitality as well as lack of cruelty to animals. He refers to “Law based religions” where some things are compulsory whereas in Buddhism there is no compulsion. Buddha was not a lawgiver but recommended good behaviour, giving reasons why and encouraged thinking. Some religions are exclusivist, claiming that there is nothing in other religions. Buddhism is not and Bhante Dhammika refers to an incident where the Buddha encouraged a disciple who converted from Jainism to continue to give alms to his former Jain colleagues.

Have all these strengths of Buddhism become its weakness and the reason for the shrinking number of followers? Had Buddhism demanded more from followers would it have flourished better? Is the numbers game that important? These are interesting questions to ponder over and I am sure, in time, researchers would write theses on these.

Whilst total numbers may diminish in traditional Buddhist areas, more people in the West are recognising the value of the philosophy of Buddhism. Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced is gaining wide acceptance and is increasingly applied in many spheres of modern life. Perhaps, what is important is not the numbers that practise Buddhism as a religion but the lasting influence of the Buddha’s concepts and foundations he laid for modern scientific thinking and analysis of the mind!

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Features

Political violence stalking Trump administration

Published

on

A scene that unfolded during the shooting incident at the recent White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. (BBC)

It would not be particularly revelatory to say that the US is plagued by ‘gun violence’. It is a deeply entrenched and widespread malaise that has come in tandem with the relative ease with which firearms could be acquired and owned by sections of the US public, besides other causes.

However, a third apparent attempt on the life of US President Donald Trump in around two and a half years is both thought-provoking and unsettling for the defenders of democracy. After all, whatever its short comings the US remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and in fact the ‘mightiest’ one. And the US must remain a foremost democracy for the purpose of balancing and offsetting the growing power of authoritarian states in the global power system, who are no friends of genuine representational governance.

Therefore, the recent breaching of the security cordon surrounding the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington at which President Trump and his inner Cabinet were present, by an apparently ‘Lone Wolf’ gunman, besides raising issues relating to the reliability of the security measures deployed for the President, indicates a notable spike in anti-VVIP political violence in particular in the US. It is a pointer to a strong and widespread emergence of anti-democratic forces which seem to be gaining in virulence and destructiveness.

The issues raised by the attack are in the main for the US’ political Right and its supporters. They have smugly and complacently stood by while the extremists in their midst have taken centre stage and begun to dictate the course of Right wing politics. It is the political culture bred by them that leads to ‘Lone Wolf’ gunmen, for instance, who see themselves as being repressed or victimized, taking the law into their own hands, so to speak, and perpetrating ‘revenge attacks’ on the state and society.

A disproportionate degree of attention has been paid particularly internationally to Donald Trump’s personality and his eccentricities but such political persons cannot be divorced from the political culture in which they originate and have their being. That is, “structural” questions matter. Put simply, Donald Trump is a ‘true son’ of the Far Right, his principal support base. The issues raised are therefore for the President as well as his supporters of the Right.

We are obliged to respect the choices of the voting public but in the case of Trump’s election to the highest public position in the US, this columnist is inclined to see in those sections that voted for Trump blind followers of the latter who cared not for their candidate’s suitability, in every relevant respect, and therefore acted irrationally. It would seem that the Right in the US wanted their candidate to win by ‘hook or by crook’ and exercise power on their behalf.

By making the above observations this columnist does not intend to imply that voting publics everywhere in the world of democracy cast their vote sensibly. In the case of Sri Lanka, for example, the question could be raised whether the voters of the country used their vote sensibly when voting into office the majority of Executive Presidents and other persons holding high public office. The obvious answer is ‘no’ and this should lead to a wider public discussion on the dire need for thoroughgoing voter education. The issue is a ‘huge’ one that needs to be addressed in the appropriate forums and is beyond the scope of this column.

Looking back it could be said that the actions of Trump and his die-hard support base led to the Rule of Law in the US being undermined as perhaps never before in modern times. A shaming moment in this connection was the protest march, virtually motivated by Trump, of his supporters to the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, with the aim of scuttling the presidential poll result of that year. Much violence and unruly behaviour, as known, was let loose. This amounted to denigrating the democratic process and encouraging the violent take over of the state.

In a public address, prior to the unruly conduct of his supporters, Trump is on record as blaring forth the following: ‘We won this election and we won by a landslide’, ‘We will stop the steal’, ‘We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen’, ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’

It is plain to see that such inflammatory utterances could lead impressionable minds in particular to revolt violently. Besides, they should have led the more rationally inclined to wonder whether their candidate was the most suitable person to hold the office of President.

Unfortunately, the latter process was not to be and the question could be raised whether the US is in the ‘safest pair of hands’. Needless to say, as events have revealed, Donald Trump is proving to be one of the most erratic heads of state the US has ever had.

However, the latest attempt on the life of President Trump suggests that considerable damage has been done to the democratic integrity of the US and none other than the President himself has to take on himself a considerable proportion of the blame for such degeneration, besides the US’ Far Right. They could be said to be ‘reaping the whirlwind.’

It is a time for soul-searching by the US Right. The political Right has the right to exist, so the speak, in a functional democracy but it needs to take cognizance of how its political culture is affecting the democratic integrity or health of the US. Ironically, the repressive and chauvinistic politics advocated by it is having the effect of activating counter-violence of the most murderous kind, as was witnessed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Continued repressive politics could only produce more such incidents that could be self-defeating for the US.

Some past US Presidents were assassinated but the present political violence in the country brings into focus as perhaps never before the role that an anti-democratic political culture could play in unraveling the gains that the US has made over the decades. A duty is cast on pro-democracy forces to work collectively towards protecting the democratic integrity and strength of the US.

Continue Reading

Trending