I get that the administration is just calling its opposition evil now, and trying to reframe the election in terms of 'semi' fascism versus 'our democracy' rather than (ahem) discuss the recession and inflation, the military failures in Afghanistan, the impending war in Taiwan for which they are unprepared, and so on.
Nevertheless, has anyone in post-WWII American political rhetoric staged a more actually fascist display than this? Flanked by blood red light 'banners' with a military guard on display, calling opponents creatures of chaos who live in darkness, who have made their choice and must face the wrath of the nation: rhetorically, at least, this is right out of the playbook.
Wildly, it's an adoption of anti-American Chinese propaganda as the chosen self-presentation of the Biden administration.
In May 2021, another person shared a post on Twitter with images of purported Chinese propaganda against Biden. The illustrations show Biden, with yellow glowing eyes, sitting on a throne of AR-15s that looks like the Iron Throne from the HBO series Game of Thrones. Some Biden supporters liked the images, saying how they looked so "metal."
This "Dark Brandon" meme has apparently become quite popular among the same young Ivy-educated White House staffers who wrote his "targeted" student loan relief to benefit chiefly and especially themselves. They love that it makes them seem part of something badass, and are sharing and encouraging variations of the meme on Twitter.
After a string of “good news” for the Biden agenda, White House officials elevated a meme from terminally online obscurity, reclaiming ironic images of a tired and gaffe-prone president cast as a demi-god-like figure.
The meme was supercharged after the FBI’s raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort home in Palm Beach, Florida[.]
As a consequence, we get a speech that misses the smooth rhetorical tone of Chancellor Palpatine accepting the emergency powers that he used to establish the Empire...
...and the visuals have fully skipped ahead to the actual Empire.
17 comments:
While looking something up for one of my StarWars fan children, I ran across the theory that the comic relief character JarJar was really one of the villains: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3qvj6w/theory_jar_jar_binks_was_a_trained_force_user/
Is Biden merely acting like a buffoon? Nah.
Most of the focus is on the visuals (set design by Leni Riefenstahl) but to me the most worrisome aspect of the whole thing is Biden saying:
That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger’ to our democracy.
It seems that the term "clear and present danger" has a particular legal meaning:
The clear and present danger test originated in Schenck v. the United States. The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger
Three times in this speech, Biden said, "I will not stand by and watch..." So what he will do about it?
This speech was set up by the meeting in which historians warned that democracy is teetering. We are being led somewhere - it will be interesting to see where. (Interesting in the sense of the curse: May you live in interesting times.)
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/read-transcript-president-joe-bidens-speech-philadelphia/VDRBTNXYEBG4XM2ZSFDLNESI4Y/
https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2022/08/historians-warn-biden-democracy.html
Not my thought - wish it was. I ran across it on Twitter and can't figure out where so as to give credit.
It seems that the term "clear and present danger" has a particular legal meaning:
Well, it did: that ruling was overturned by the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision. 1st Amendment free speech theoretically enjoys much more protection now than before, just as the 2nd Amendment rights theoretically enjoy more since Heller and the recent Bruen decisions.
However, Joltin' Joe doesn't seem especially concerned about respecting the latter two; maybe he's planning to violate the former, as well. Banning Trump's political rallies 'because they are extremist / might produce violence/riots' would be in line with the rhetoric Biden employed this week, just as is arresting the lawyers of opposition groups like the Oath Keepers and figures (including Trump's during the Russia hoax, backed by this week's noise from DOJ that Trump's lawyers might be guilty of obstruction of justice).
You're right, they're sounding like they're planning a genuinely authoritarian and fascist move against constitutional rights, justified by the claim that their opponents are authoritarians and fascists who don't respect the Constitution.
I took a look at Brandenburg v Ohio and if the reference I found is correct there is still plenty of room for Biden to use this against Trump, his associates, and pretty much anyone who doesn't condemn them and condemn the January 6 occupation of the Capitol:
Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled.
The "directed to" and "likely to" elements are open to interpretation. And even if whatever Biden does is struck down in the end, it may be post-election.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
I mean, a cynic might suggest that the DOJ raid on Mar a Largo was really to give the news media an excuse to make every news cycle about Trump until after the election. How far they're prepared to take all this is an open question. There's already some walking back from Biden going on today, so maybe they're feeling the weight of the mockery a bit.
The Babylon Bee is having a field day with the speech. Check out their news page. I'm sure they'll move on to other things soon, but it's wall-to-wall allusions to Biden as Hitler right now.
If their rhetoric fails to produce a violent response from identifiable Trump supporters, they will come up with a false-flag op, probably in October.
It may be simpler than that: it could just be rhetorical cover for the upcoming arrest and indictment of Donald J. Trump.
The Democrats may think they want every news cycle between now and November to be about Trump but the question is will that strategy work? All the polling I've seen indicates J6 and Trump are not a pressing concern to Republicans and independent voters. Highlighting lawfare against Republicans may be popular with a certain segment of Democrats but may turn off independent voters.
I may be entering tin-foil hat territory a little but it seems to me the Jan 6 hearings, the historians warning about fractured democracy, and the Biden "I will not stand by" form a straight line: "prove" in the hearings that Trump intended to incite and produce "imminent lawless action" and that he did, in fact, "produce such action"; get the experts to agree that democracy is in danger as a result; vow to take action to protect it. It's worth noting that Judge Luttig made his statement as a witness in the Jan 6 hearings and he said far more than simply the clear and present danger warning - he anticipated the historians' warnings.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/16/trump-clear-present-danger-to-us-democracy-conservative-judge-warns
To me, however, the MAL raid doesn't make sense if censorship based on the clear and present danger criteria is the goal. In fact, if I were doing this, I would go out of my way to avoid doing anything that smacked of banana republic actions, including also stuff like arresting Governor Whitmer's probably opponent, arresting lawyers, etc. Maybe Biden thought that the MAL raid would find a scribbled note on the back of an envelope: "Remember to incite imminent lawless action and make sure it works."
"I stand before you, burdened with glorious purpose."
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xylba9MZ--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_900,q_80,w_1600/f2c0agfobncciypbgntr.png
Dad29, someone on my social media feed posted an ad from a group I'd never heard of before, calling for a "Death to the Establishment Rage Day" on November 8 of this year, for "real patriots" to attend. Supposedly it is organized by American Sanity Magazine, which I have never heard of. The person posting it warned that this is the sort of thing to avoid. I'm inclined to agree, even if I didn't already have to work that day.
LittleRed1
All the polling I've seen indicates J6 and Trump are not a pressing concern to Republicans and independent voters.
It may backfire from a different direction, too. There's some indication of growing enthusiasm from the Left to vote over Dodd's overturning Roe. Biden's everyone to the right of me is a semi-fascist and a threat drumbeat will distract from that ruling.
Eric Hines
"...set design by Leni Riefenstahl"
I hate to be the pedant, but as an architect, I feel I have to correct this-
Albert Speer was the "set designer" and Riefenstahl was the film director/propagandist. So she took the pictures of Speer's sets.
I was saying that the Biden backdrop was reminiscent of Speer's Cathedral of Light at the Nuremberg Rallies, but then I saw this picture and thought maybe this was a better match. Tough call.
Interesting observation, douglas.
A point that escaped me until this morning is that this speech was billed as a 'crime prevention' speech. Biden did eventually get around to pushing for an 'assault weapons' ban, as he and his like to call it. That includes of course the AR-15, which is the most popular rifle in America, and rifles are statistically rarely used in crime: and the logic of both Heller and Bruen is that weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
So all this talk about evil enemies who don't love the Constitution is in service of a planned policy that aims to violate the Constitution; all this talk about not respecting the process is in service to a policy that aims to defy a co-equal branch of government in order to eliminate a constitutional right.
Thanks for the correction, douglas.
Post a Comment