Activists hold a lit 'FAKE CRISIS' sign as they stage a protest outside the White House in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's prime time address to the nation January 8, 2019 in Washington, DC. President Trump urged Congress to fund $5.7 billion for a border wall. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
'Shock Doctrine' Author Naomi Klein Worries 'What Next?' If Trump Succeeds in Inventing a 'National Emergency'
"What further roll back of rights... become possible under the banner of 'emergency?'" asks author and activist. "What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works?"
As a result of creating a fake crisis in order to appease his far-right base and achieve a policy goal that has majority public opposition, President Donald Trump continues to threaten to declare a "national emergency" as a way to commandeer military funds in order to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine, but this is a bit extreme."
-- Naomi KleinBut even as experts debate whether or not Trump has the authority to make such a declaration--and consensus that an immediate legal battle would ensue--author and activist Naomi Klein on Thursday morning expressed worry that if the president is allowed to get away with such anti-democratic maneuvers, what would stop him from repeating the tactics in the future.
Klein's statement of concern came in response to a new story on the issue by Charlie Savage at the New York Times - one which noted that "If the president does invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress, it would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms -- and establish a precedent for presidents who fail to win approval for funding a policy goal."
The Times article was headlined, "Trump's Emergency Powers Threat Could End Shutdown Crisis, but at What Cost?" To which Klein answered: "At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, 'no protest zones'), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of 'emergency?' What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works?"
At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, "no protest zones"), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of "emergency?" What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works? https://t.co/2wTsAhNsQ1
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
In her 2007 book of the same name, Klein used the framework of the 'Shock Doctrine' to describe scenarios in which powerful actors such as corporate interests or governments use crises--whether natural or human-cause, real or invented--to push through a set of unpopular policies that would be impossible, or a least difficult, to enact absent the threat of fear and chaos generated by such societal "shocks."
On Thursday morning, Trump said that if a deal with Democrats is not reached soon," I would say it would be very surprising to me that I would not declare a national emergency and just fund it through the various mechanisms."
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he has "the absolute right to do national emergency if I want."
In her reaction, Klein argued the president's syntax was revealing. "Not 'to declare a national emergency' but 'do national emergency' - make it out of whole cloth," she noted.
Incidentally, Trump's syntax is enormously revealing: "I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want." Not "to declare a national emergency" but "do national emergency" - make it out of whole cloth. Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine but this is a bit extreme. https://t.co/x8EygYzimL
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine," Klein added, "but this is a bit extreme."
Update: This post was updated to include new comments from Trump about the likelihood he would declare an emergency.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As a result of creating a fake crisis in order to appease his far-right base and achieve a policy goal that has majority public opposition, President Donald Trump continues to threaten to declare a "national emergency" as a way to commandeer military funds in order to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine, but this is a bit extreme."
-- Naomi KleinBut even as experts debate whether or not Trump has the authority to make such a declaration--and consensus that an immediate legal battle would ensue--author and activist Naomi Klein on Thursday morning expressed worry that if the president is allowed to get away with such anti-democratic maneuvers, what would stop him from repeating the tactics in the future.
Klein's statement of concern came in response to a new story on the issue by Charlie Savage at the New York Times - one which noted that "If the president does invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress, it would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms -- and establish a precedent for presidents who fail to win approval for funding a policy goal."
The Times article was headlined, "Trump's Emergency Powers Threat Could End Shutdown Crisis, but at What Cost?" To which Klein answered: "At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, 'no protest zones'), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of 'emergency?' What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works?"
At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, "no protest zones"), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of "emergency?" What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works? https://t.co/2wTsAhNsQ1
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
In her 2007 book of the same name, Klein used the framework of the 'Shock Doctrine' to describe scenarios in which powerful actors such as corporate interests or governments use crises--whether natural or human-cause, real or invented--to push through a set of unpopular policies that would be impossible, or a least difficult, to enact absent the threat of fear and chaos generated by such societal "shocks."
On Thursday morning, Trump said that if a deal with Democrats is not reached soon," I would say it would be very surprising to me that I would not declare a national emergency and just fund it through the various mechanisms."
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he has "the absolute right to do national emergency if I want."
In her reaction, Klein argued the president's syntax was revealing. "Not 'to declare a national emergency' but 'do national emergency' - make it out of whole cloth," she noted.
Incidentally, Trump's syntax is enormously revealing: "I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want." Not "to declare a national emergency" but "do national emergency" - make it out of whole cloth. Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine but this is a bit extreme. https://t.co/x8EygYzimL
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine," Klein added, "but this is a bit extreme."
Update: This post was updated to include new comments from Trump about the likelihood he would declare an emergency.
As a result of creating a fake crisis in order to appease his far-right base and achieve a policy goal that has majority public opposition, President Donald Trump continues to threaten to declare a "national emergency" as a way to commandeer military funds in order to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine, but this is a bit extreme."
-- Naomi KleinBut even as experts debate whether or not Trump has the authority to make such a declaration--and consensus that an immediate legal battle would ensue--author and activist Naomi Klein on Thursday morning expressed worry that if the president is allowed to get away with such anti-democratic maneuvers, what would stop him from repeating the tactics in the future.
Klein's statement of concern came in response to a new story on the issue by Charlie Savage at the New York Times - one which noted that "If the president does invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress, it would be an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms -- and establish a precedent for presidents who fail to win approval for funding a policy goal."
The Times article was headlined, "Trump's Emergency Powers Threat Could End Shutdown Crisis, but at What Cost?" To which Klein answered: "At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, 'no protest zones'), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of 'emergency?' What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works?"
At a huge cost. What further roll back of rights (e.g. curfews, "no protest zones"), not to mention intensified state violence and surveillance, become possible under the banner of "emergency?" What is to stop him from declaring emergencies again and again if this works? https://t.co/2wTsAhNsQ1
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
In her 2007 book of the same name, Klein used the framework of the 'Shock Doctrine' to describe scenarios in which powerful actors such as corporate interests or governments use crises--whether natural or human-cause, real or invented--to push through a set of unpopular policies that would be impossible, or a least difficult, to enact absent the threat of fear and chaos generated by such societal "shocks."
On Thursday morning, Trump said that if a deal with Democrats is not reached soon," I would say it would be very surprising to me that I would not declare a national emergency and just fund it through the various mechanisms."
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that he has "the absolute right to do national emergency if I want."
In her reaction, Klein argued the president's syntax was revealing. "Not 'to declare a national emergency' but 'do national emergency' - make it out of whole cloth," she noted.
Incidentally, Trump's syntax is enormously revealing: "I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want." Not "to declare a national emergency" but "do national emergency" - make it out of whole cloth. Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine but this is a bit extreme. https://t.co/x8EygYzimL
-- Naomi Klein (@NaomiAKlein) January 10, 2019
"Even I'm bored of the Shock Doctrine," Klein added, "but this is a bit extreme."
Update: This post was updated to include new comments from Trump about the likelihood he would declare an emergency.