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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.