SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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)
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."
\u201cTRUMP: I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want.\n\nREPORTER: What\u2019s your threshold for when you might make that decision?\n\nTRUMP: My threshold will be if I can\u2019t make a deal with people that are unreasonable.\n\nhttps://t.co/8LwEQIIwji\u201d— JM Rieger (@JM Rieger) 1547056866
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.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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."
\u201cTRUMP: I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want.\n\nREPORTER: What\u2019s your threshold for when you might make that decision?\n\nTRUMP: My threshold will be if I can\u2019t make a deal with people that are unreasonable.\n\nhttps://t.co/8LwEQIIwji\u201d— JM Rieger (@JM Rieger) 1547056866
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."
\u201cTRUMP: I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want.\n\nREPORTER: What\u2019s your threshold for when you might make that decision?\n\nTRUMP: My threshold will be if I can\u2019t make a deal with people that are unreasonable.\n\nhttps://t.co/8LwEQIIwji\u201d— JM Rieger (@JM Rieger) 1547056866
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.