hate and politics – USA Gov Policy

The tweets by former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes musing on the death of Trump and GOP leaders, and similar extreme comments by others raise an important issue: Are the bonds which unite Americans weakening due to the strident attacks on the outcome of the presidential election?

It’s increasingly worrisome that much of the political chattering classes have become obsessed—there is no better word—with their hatred for both Trump and his supporters, those whom the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016 described as “deplorables.”

Their anger differs from the usual political disagreements that have characterized politics in the past. It is not a rejection of policy or actions—such as that which marked centrist and conservative dissent against Obama’s agenda. It is, instead, a cultural hatred of those that don’t subscribe to progressive orthodoxy. In its extremity, it is a rejection of the identity of those whom one disagrees with as fellow citizens of a free republic, merely because of differing views. The trend was crystalized when Hillary Clinton, when asked who she thought of as “the enemy,” responded, not Russia or China, or poverty or discrimination, but “Republicans.”

Labelling countrymen as “enemies” or “deplorables” opens the door to the justification of harsh repressive measures. This trend was becoming apparent during the Obama Administration, when the IRS was used to attack the Tea Party, and when Attorney General Loretta Lynch seriously considered criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with the President’s view on climate change.

In the past, even significant transfers of power from one ideology to the other were peaceful. Liberal Jimmy Carter’s replacement with conservative Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush to Barack Obama being salient examples. Of course, there were disagreements and harshness, but nothing approaching what occurred after the 2016 election. The well-coordinated and financed violence that occurred in city streets, the calls to impeach Trump before he was even inaugurated, the commencement of a politically motivated investigation on the most specious and unsubstantiated grounds, and the creation of a false sense of crisis by a partisan media are unprecedented.

The images of Trump’s severed head made popular by comedian Kathy Griffen, and the shoot-up of a Republican sports outing by a left wing fanatic have carved out unwelcome and dire territory in the American political experience.
The experts recommend to the ED patients ask this question. cialis tabs 20mg For a consultation or more information you can levitra professional online reach Dr. It had not been their own problems as their partners also experienced tastelessness in their life. cialis 5 mg cute-n-tiny.com This disease in scientific terms viagra generico uk is known as sildenafil citrate medicine.
The problem extends far beyond vapid Hollywood starlets and hyper-partisan politicos. The actions of oft-overturned Ninth Circuit judges seeking to seize the statutory powers of the presidency, the attempts by career federal bureaucrats to ignore the directives of elected officials, and perhaps most distressingly the very serious discussion of a California secession movement all point to a potential break in intra-national relations not seen since the assault on Fort Sumter.

In many ways, the intensified declarations by a number of city and state governments that they are “sanctuary cities” is similar to the nullification argument of southern states before the outbreak of the Civil War.

The 1832 South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification was issued in response to a federal tariff. The state government simply decided it had the right to ignore federal legislation, in an area of law the Constitution clearly provided to Washington. USHistory.org notes: “As far as South Carolina was concerned, there was no tariff. A line had been drawn. Jackson rightly regarded this … challenge as so serious that he asked Congress to enact legislation permitting him to use federal troops to enforce federal laws…If nullification had been successful, could secession have been far behind?”

The nation was able to pull back from the brink of confrontation in 1832. It did not escape a cataclysm in 1861.

When some states, cities and courts decide to ignore the Constitution, when many political partisans declare that “Trump is not my President,” and when biased media outlets vigorously push a fevered and inaccurate picture of a nation in turmoil, it would appear that America is in danger of moving closer to an ideological 1861 moment.

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)