Donald Trump’s choice to unleash the National Guard and various military and paramilitary forces onto cities around the country, such as Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, has garnered many descriptors. Some deem it a dark omen of what might be looming ahead, other’s perceive it as a potential threat to our democracy, assuming we still hold dear the principles of democracy in this land. Many have ridiculed the move as clumsily executed, filled with irony and a recipe for self-destruction. Yet, alongside these criticisms exists a belief that these actions are far from unparalleled.
Quite the contrary, this is not an uncommon occurrence in the United States. Despite the moral discourse proliferating in American journalism telling tales of purported ‘norms’ and ‘guardrails’, this nation has seen multiple instances of armed forces taking to the streets. Appeals to democratic ideals do little to erase history. The only time such norms might apply are under rare circumstances following strict rules, yet even these rules appear rather ambiguous and flexible.
In reality, the political ‘taboo’ of deploying troops into the streets of America, in many ways, is upheld more in violation than in adherence. The sitting presidents or governors are often expected to come up with a justifiable reason to break the taboo, even if the veneer of validity becomes painful to maintain. This reason is usually a significant event like a natural disaster or large-scale disturbance.
Let us not forget Trump is not the inaugural commander-in-chief to resort to federal supremacy, employing the National Guard over state and local administrations. This tactic is an age-old point of contention in U.S. political history. However, what perturbs citizens who consider themselves distant from any MAGA affiliations (who are, according to recent polls, the majority) is the ‘who’ and ‘why’ concerning the decision to bring in the troops rather than the action itself.
The unsettling realization about this deployment is neither novel nor heartening. Instead, it echoes worries about a rising tide of executive authority. This inclination towards an expanding presidential power contests to be a historical pattern spanning back even as far back as preceding presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt or perhaps even to Abraham Lincoln’s era during the Civil War.
Perhaps it’s a simplistic reading of history, but one could argue that Lincoln’s extraordinary expansion of presidential powers in an attempt to vanquish the Confederacy was the kindling to this long-lasting fire. This single action seemed to set a precedent that eventually steered our nation to its current precarious situation, threatened by an authoritative regime with neo-Confederate undertones.
Ironically enough, if this view holds any truth, even a mere 10 percent, it would serve as one of history’s most bitter jest. The central issue with Trump’s residential application of the military, quite frankly, is the dubious reasoning behind it. The purported uproar that the National Guard was mobilized to quell appears to be grossly overstated if not entirely fictional.
However, if one were to perceive Trump’s troop deployments as an act of political theater intended to impress a particular demographic, with dual goals of silencing protests and splitting the political opposition, the move is hardly revolutionary. This spectacle is, in many ways, a staple of American politics. In the end, it’s the same old song, just a different verse.
The post Dark Indications of Trump’s Abuse of National Guard appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
