Alternative Facts, Fake News, Protests and Fascism

Over the past week or so, there has been no shortage of interesting developments across our nation and, more locally, in Missouri.  Now that I've had some time to digest these things in further detail, I thought I'd share some of my views on these issues.

• First, we had the bizarre spectacle in the days after the inauguration, in which the newly sworn-in President and his sycophants spent press conferences and interviews disputing the number of people who attended the inauguration.  This was quickly followed by the President yelling at media in a press conference and calling them "fake news" and his Chief of Staff telling the media to shut up.  The last time I checked, the First Amendment protected the freedom of the press and it's a startling development when the President and his Chief of Staff seem to basically be disregarding it.  Then, we had Kellyanne Conway justifying Trump's press secretary's claims as being "alternative facts," which may be one of the most ridiculous - not to mention dangerous - things I've ever heard.  Alternative facts?  No, there are facts and there are fiction.  Something is either true or it isn't.  This isn't "Back to the Future Part II," where there was a real 1985 and an alternate 1985.  It's an undisputed FACT that more people attended Obama's inauguration in 2009 and attended Trump's inauguration. 
• Next, who cares?  What difference does it make if there were 50,000 people or 250,000 people or a million people.  Does it really matter?  Hitler and the Nazis drew huge crowds to some of their rallies in Germany in the 1930s - that doesn't mean a huge crowd necessarily equates to anything good. 
• When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that Obama's crowds would have been larger.  First, his 2009 inauguration was an undoubtedly historic event - the first minority president in U.S. history, which is naturally going to ramp up attendance and excitement.  Also, consider the source of support for the respective presidents.  Much of Obama's support came from large cities and much of the Northeast, which is much more accessible to Washington, DC.  Trump's support came largely from the South and the middle of the country, as well as from more rural areas, folks for whom a trip to Washington, DC is more difficult.  Rather than offering up some of these things as reasons for a smaller turnout or, even better, just disregarding the issue altogether, Trump's crew instead argued about "fake news", "alternative facts" and media bias.
• The whole "fake news" accusation seems ironic as well.  Do I think the so-called "mainstream media" may have a more liberal bias?  Sure.  However, I always find it interesting when people who blast the mainstream media for hiding or not telling the truth are themselves under the spell of "fake" news media that unequivocally peddle untrue bullshit on a regular basis.  Some of these people are so blinded by their mistrust of the media that they will believe any crackpot website that spews inaccuracies that dovetail with their world view without ever doing any research to see where the truth may lie.  The fact that so many people - from both ends of the political spectrum - spend their lives in an echo chamber that only serves to reinforce their views and beliefs is a frightening thing.
• The day after the inauguration, we witnessed something unlike anything most of us have ever seen - simultaneous protests in cities from coast to coast and around the world.  And they were peaceful protests to boot!  I personally didn't participate, though I witnessed first hand how many people marched in St. Louis, as we were downtown for something else that morning. 
• I support the marchers for exercising their First Amendment rights, even if I'm still a little fuzzy on what the purpose of the protests were supposed to accomplish.  Protests themselves will accomplish little.  But if those protests subsequently spur people to get involved with running for office or reaching out to their government representatives to influence the direction of the country, then they will have achieved some long lasting impact. 
• Those marches cannot be the end all, be all of their efforts.  If people truly want to affect change, it has to be more than a few marches or protests.  The protests in Ferguson in 2014 accomplished very little.  But some of those protesters have subsequently been elected to public office where they can attempt to affect some of the changes they desire to see.  Time will tell the ultimate impact of the marches.
• Over the course of Trump's first week in office, he has shown that Trump the President will not be any different than Trump the Candidate.  Anyone hoping that the incredible responsibility of being the so called "Leader of the Free World" might temper his behavior has to, so far, be extremely disappointed.  He's continued saying and doing what he wants with little regard for the downstream impact of his actions.  Obviously, we're only a little more than a week into a four year term, so a lot of things can happen, but so far anyone hoping that Trump would govern differently than he campaigned has to be disappointed.
• Those who know me know that I'm not one to throw out labels or call people names.  However, there was a trending internet topic recently about whether or not Trump is a fascist.  While it may seem like hyperbole for someone to ask that question, there is actually some merit to it.  If you research the "14 signs of fascism", Trump and his Chief of Staff Bannon actually check several of the boxes:
• Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
• Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
• Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives.  (Think of Bannon basically telling the media that they need to shut up and Trump threatening to block some media outlets. Also, basically telling EPA and National Park Service employees that they can't speak.)
• Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
• There are a few others that might not exactly fit but certainly don't see outside the realm of possibility.  I'm not necessarily calling Trump a fascist, but there he and his cronies do seem to have some tendencies that lean in that direction.  It's just something for his unabashed followers to consider.
• I want America to be as successful as it can be and, from that perspective, I want Trump's presidency to be a success.  I didn't vote for him, but he's my president just as much as Obama, Bush or Clinton were before him.  I just disagree that the way to get there is to indiscriminately ban Muslims (albeit not from Saudia Arabia, the country that produced the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) or build walls or drum up tariffs in an effort to punish other countries or to nominate an Education Secretary who is unquestionably hostile to public education.  I don't think you "Make America Great Again" by tamping down dissent, picking fights with other world leaders or muzzling government employees.  But that's just my proverbial two cents.

Thanks for reading!