Political analyst Greg Sargent, in a recent podcast for The New Republic, delivered something of an apocalyptic report. He suggested that over the past several weeks, America has been drifting away from its democratic moorings and barrelling towards outright authoritarianism. Sargent’s argument, featuring historian and journalist Garrett Graff, claimed to substantiate this view by pointing to perceived abuses of power by the then government, such as the alleged misuse of the justice system against political opponents.
A significant part of their debate revolved around accusations of Trump commandeering the military for domestic control. According to their interpretation, the deployment of armed forces in cities like LA, DC, presumably Chicago next, epitomized his authoritarian overreach. They seemed to assert that such military presence was neither desired nor welcomed by local residents, thus characterizing these operations as acts of imposition on the American populace.
In Sargent’s perspective, echoed by Graff, these are signs of a democracy slipping into authoritarianism. However, one might beg to differ, seeing these actions instead as a response to the disturbances challenging public peace and order. They point out an executive order signed by Trump, which granted Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the power to form specialized units in the National Guard for handling public order issues.
Sargent and Graff critiqued this move as an attempt by Trump and Stephen Miller to normalize the vision of troops navigating American city landscapes. In their view, this could be seen as a move towards using military forces against American citizens. However, another interpretation might consider this as simply a measure to safeguard domestic peace and maintain public law and order, not unlike measures implemented by many other democracies globally.
Coming to the issue of Lisa Cook, whose position on the Federal Reserve Board has stirred up a storm. Sargent and Graff suggest that Trump’s attempts to remove her from the post are indicative of his authoritarian tendencies. Laughably, they build this case on the premise of alleged mortgage fraud – an accusation that Trump, according to them, liberally applies to all and sundry.
However, they conveniently disregard the fact that if these allegations hold water, they would indeed constitute a breach of trust and a valid cause for dismissal. The authority to remove a Federal Reserve Governor ‘for cause’ is enshrined in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, they seem to forget, or perhaps, choose to overlook.
The assertion that Trump’s actions have adverse effects on the economy lacks substantial support as well. His supposed ‘meddling’ with the Federal Reserve led to a sharp decrease in the U.S. Dollar Index, according to them. However, economic indices can be influenced by numerous factors, and to single out a political move as the sole cause appears somewhat reductionist.
Cook, now an entrenched part of the central bank’s rate-setting committee, was appointed by President Joe Biden to a term running until 2038. Though it may be true that President Trump lacks the power to dismiss Cook by executive fiat, it would be entirely within his rights to do so if there is a cause – a fact they seem to gloss over.
The intriguing retrospective of Sargent and Graff’s discourse brings into focus a broader question about political bias. The way an individual interprets information or constructs narratives can be significantly influenced by their political leanings. Hence, while they paint a picture of advancing authoritarianism, others might interpret the same facts differently – seeing a resilience of democratic systems and processes.
Suffice it to say, every action of the government can be construed differently based on individual perspectives. Measures taken to maintain public order and safeguard national security can be perceived as authoritarian, depending on the narrative one wishes to uphold.
Finally, with regards to the dismissal of Lisa Cook, it remains yet another topic open for debate. While some might view it as an ill-conceived personal vendetta, others would argue ’cause’ stands paramount over personal biases, even more so when it comes to positions of substantial economic influence.
In conclusion, the perceptions of advancing authoritarianism expressed in Sargent’s discussion downplay the complexity of governing a nation as vast and diverse as the United States. They forget that governing requires making bold decisions and taking measures that are not always popular.
Analysing the actions of any government necessitates a consideration of the whole picture, as well as recognition that difficult or unpopular decisions are sometimes necessary. Ultimately, one must not lose sight of the fact that narratives, no matter how compelling, can often be heavily influenced by underlying political preferences.
The post Sargent and Graff Spin Desperate Tales of Disarray appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
