Jul 25 2024 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact on the 5 November presidential election with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law.
On 1 July, the US Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts, although they don’t enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The decision comes as Donald Trump faces criminal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The question now is whether Trump’s actions will be considered official or unofficial. But it’s unlikely he’ll be tried before the election, and if he returns as president he could pardon himself. Critics claim the Supreme Court ruling violates the spirit of the US Constitution by placing the president above the law.
What are the main points of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity?
This is a ruling in the federal case against Trump for trying to overturn his loss to Biden in the 2020 election. He is accused of pressuring state officials to overturn the results, spreading lies about voter fraud and using the Capitol riot of 6 January 2021 to delay Biden’s certification and stay in power. Trump pleaded not guilty and asked the US Supreme Court to dismiss the entire case, arguing that he was acting in his role as president and was therefore immune from prosecution.
The Supreme Court didn’t do that, but instead created three new categories of presidential immunity: complete immunity for official acts involving core constitutional powers, potential immunity for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of official duties and no immunity for private, unofficial acts.
The key question now is whether Trump’s actions will be deemed official, giving him immunity, or unofficial, leaving him open to prosecution. This is the first case of its kind, as Trump is the first American president to be prosecuted.
How does this ruling affect Trump’s other criminal cases?
This immunity ruling is likely to delay all four of his criminal cases, as judges will have to apply these new rules and drop any charges that involve the use of core presidential powers, as these can no longer be used as evidence against him.
As well as being accused of trying to overturn his 2020 defeat, Trump is also accused of paying adult film actress Stormy Daniels hush money during the 2016 election and not properly accounting for it in his business records. This case is unlikely to be affected by the ruling, as his actions don’t involve either core or peripheral presidential powers. Judge Merchan will have to decide whether any of his 34 felony business fraud convictions will stand or be thrown out.
But some of his other crimes occurred during his time in the Oval Office. Trump is accused of conspiring to overturn his 2020 loss in Georgia by asking the state’s top election official to ‘find 11,780 votes’. Trump has pleaded not guilty and could be prosecuted in his personal capacity, as presidents have no role in administering US elections. As in the Capitol case, this was a private action he took as a candidate and it would be difficult to fit into the category of presidential immunity.
The fourth case Trump faces is the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents by taking them to his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving office and refusing to return them to the National Archives when he could no longer lawfully possess them. As his alleged crimes took place when he was no longer president, this case shouldn’t be affected by the immunity ruling. However, he could argue he possessed the documents while in office and ask that his case be treated differently from other defendants. This case was dismissed by Judge Cannon. However, the Mar-a-Lago criminal case could come back to life if the 11th Circuit reverses her dismissal.
What are the broader implications of this case for the presidential election?
After this decision, the American public should think about the consequences of who they elect as president, because the presidency can become a wellspring of crime.
An honest president wouldn’t be affected by the Trump v. US decision, because an honest person doesn’t need criminal immunity. Only time will tell whether the Supreme Court has invited future presidents to go on a crime spree. But what is certain is that only US voters can keep criminals out of the White House. So, as I write in my new book, Corporatocracy, the stakes in the 2024 election are incredibly high for the fate of US democracy.
Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Senior citizens are exercising at a park in Bangkok. Out of 67 million Thais, 12 million are elderly. Credit: UNFPA Asia and the Pacific
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jul 25 2024 (IPS) – Several Asia-Pacific countries are ageing fast. This transition is neither unique nor limited to the region — it is a global megatrend. However, this time it is different. Why? Because ageing proceeds quite fast.
While France and Sweden took 115 and 85 years, respectively, to progress from being an ageing society (with 7-14 per cent of the population aged 60 or older) to an aged society (14-21 per cent aged 60 or older), the same transition in China, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam is expected to take only 19-25 years.
Compared to other global megatrends that are shaping economies, such as digitalization or climate change, demographic shifts remain relatively foreseeable and slower by nature. This provides some soothing yet misleading comfort to policymakers. The impact these shifts have on economies is far from being simple, and analysts struggle to fully understand and/or quantify them.
The economy is the people. Therefore, demographic shifts stand out as one of the most influential factors shaping any aspect of an economy. Changing demographics means altering the essence and purpose of all economic activities.
As the purpose changes, so do the needs. Changes in productivity, the share of population in job markets, fiscal policy conduct and effectiveness, and how monetary policy affects economies – all these processes introduce high uncertainty into long-term economic and fiscal policy planning.
Why do the analysts struggle with quantifying the economic impact of ageing? The net change is a sum of multiple factors, often working in opposing directions. As people age, their productivity tends to fall. On the other hand, this trend is offset by technological progress, though to a largely unknown extent, making the net impact difficult to predict.
Ageing societies also exhibit a shift in consumption from durables (e.g. cars) to essential services (e.g. health care), thus affecting a country’s composition of demand for goods and services and tax revenues. Ageing also changes labour force participation. In simple terms, the share of working people in aged societies is lower than in young ones.
Furthermore, the more developed a society is, the greater the temptation to withdraw from the workforce as older people have the possibility to withdraw faster from labour force and enjoy the comfort of retirement. In contrast, in developing societies older people must work up until very old age to avoid poverty. No stone remains unturned.
Why is that all troublesome from the perspective of fiscal policymaking?
First, policymakers would like to know how much of goods and services are and will be produced so that they can plan how to redistribute them through taxes and fiscal expenditures. In plain words, policymakers need to know how to cut and redistribute the “economic pie” (GDP) – and it is not easy to predict its size in the future.
Second, some fiscal expenditures increase and some fall as societies age. Fiscal expenditures on pensions rise along with health care and other forms of social protection. In contrast, education expenditures fall given less demand for children education.
Third, the exact scale and time of these shifts is not easy to determine.
However, Governments do not have to remain passive observers of the demographic shifts, as they have multiple tools to soften the negative impact and boost positive processes. For example, premature retirement results in excessive burden on the fiscal system. Reskilling and upskilling of older people do retain them in work force, increase economic output and reduce poverty among older persons.
At the same time, governments may implement society-wide policies that support healthy and active ageing. With the help of modern technologies and experience from other aged countries, such as Japan, much can be done to keep people active into old age.
All such actions not only improve quality of life and economic performance among older people, but also, directly alleviate the fiscal burden of pension systems as retirement is postponed.
Finally, all the challenges highlighted above and policies needed to address them are closely linked. Therefore, policymakers should seek to address few problems at a time looking for synergies.
For example, greater investments in health care, education, social protection, and environment protection do not only improve the quality of life but also allow people to stay employed for a longer time period.
A better environment improves people’s health condition, which supports economic activity and decreases public spending needs for social protection and health care. In turn, saved social protection and health care expenditures can be used to support other development priorities.
This holistic approach must become the norm of government policy planning. Socioeconomic policies must embrace the idea of synergies between their goals, so that spending on one policy target also supports other goals.
For more insights into how demographic shifts are reshaping Asia-Pacific economies, fiscal policy, and the overall development agenda please delve into the Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2024, prepared by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Michał Podolski is Associate Economic Affairs Officer
NAIROBI, Kenya, Jul 24 2024 (IPS) – Thandi*, a 14-year-old girl from Malawi, is both a child and a mother. After she and her siblings were orphaned, they were left in the care of their grandmother, who struggled to provide for them.
Thandi recalls with sorrow how two years ago, her grandmother ‘sold’ her to a much older man for a bride price of 15,000 Malawian Kwacha (approximately USD $8.65). This meager sum was only enough to buy a week’s worth of food for the family.
Forced to drop out of school to become a wife, Thandi’s dreams of education were abruptly curtailed when she left education in Standard 7 (Grade 6). She explains, “Watching my friends continue with their schooling while I grappled with the challenges of marriage has left lasting scars.”
Over 6,000 kilometers away in Nigeria’s north-western Niger State, at the end of May 2024, the local government orchestrated marriages for 100 young women. Most were orphans who lost parents in the frequent bandit attacks that plague the region. Local officials claim that all the brides were aged over 18, but there are serious concerns that many were minors.
The continent is home to 127 million child brides. Although global rates of child marriage have declined from 23% to 19%, current trends suggest that by 2050, nearly half of the world’s child brides will be African.
The causes of child marriage are multifaceted. Challenges such as climate crisis, conflict, and socio-economic instability disproportionately affect women and girls, putting them at greater risk of human rights violations.
Rather than addressing systemic issues like poverty, sexual violence, and poor access to social support and reproductive healthcare, communities often resort to marrying girls off.
Governments are failing to protect girls
As in Thandi’s case, child marriage is commonly treated as a socio-economic band-aid. In her home country of Malawi, the practice has been completely illegal since 2017, when the government took the commendable step of raising the age of marriage to 18 for both boys and girls without exception.
However, child marriage remains widespread amongst a population that has over 70% living below the international poverty line, with 2020 data showing that 38% were married before the age of 18,
The situation is similar in other African countries. Niger is reported to have the world’s highest rate of child marriage among girls, with 76% married before 18. While in Mauritania, World Bank research cited that girls from the poorest households are almost twice as likely to marry compared to those living in the richest households.
Child marriage reinforces gender inequality, with girls viewed primarily as wives and mothers. What is especially concerning is how these harmful societal norms are sometimes state-backed by governments less willing to uphold girls’ rights.
The African Court directed Mali to revise its Family Code to set the minimum age of marriage for both girls and boys at 18. Mali’s government has not yet implemented the judgment, rendering girls vulnerable to becoming child brides.
In Tanzania, a landmark judgment in 2016 mandated the government to set the minimum age of marriage for both boys and girls at 18, but Tanzania has yet to amend the Law of Marriage Act. This failure to enforce the judgment is leaving girls unprotected and is compounded by challenges that pregnant girls and adolescent mothers face in accessing education.
Tanzania’s long-term policy of expelling pregnant students from school was ruled by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) in 2022 to be a violation of girls’ human rights.
While the government has subsequently officially withdrawn this policy, the provisions in the Education Act that authorise exclusion from school of girls who are married, pregnant, or mothers remains unchanged, and there are serious concerns about the impact of Tanzania’s failure to fully implement ACERWC’s decision.
Girls across Africa who become pregnant may face the trauma of being forced to marry as a way to uphold family “honour” and avoid the social stigma associated with pregnancy outside of wedlock.
A cycle of abuse is perpetuated with young wives often denied access to education and economic opportunities, leaving them dependent on their husbands and in-laws. This makes them more susceptible to domestic violence and limits their ability to seek help or escape abuse.
African States have legal obligations to protect girls from early marriage
Government progress has been slow and inconsistent
Equality Now’s family laws report notes laudable progress, with comprehensive bans on marriage under 18 years introduced in various countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, and The Gambia.
However, progress overall has been protracted, inconsistent, and impeded by setbacks, insufficient political will, and weak implementation. Challenges are compounded by the plural legal systems in many African countries, where religious and customary legal provisions often contradict regional and international human rights standards.
In countries such as Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tanzania, discriminatory age limit provisions permit girls to be married younger than boys, while in nations including Angola, Algeria, and Tunisia, exceptions on civil or customary grounds remain.
Education is a remedy for child marriage
Urgent action is needed by 2030 to ensure all girls complete a full cycle of basic education. African leaders must work fast to develop and accelerate the implementation of progressive education policies that align and integrate with laws and policies addressing child marriage.
Strengthening legal frameworks to ensure the minimum age of marriage is set at 18 without exceptions is essential. Prosecution and punishment of perpetrators should be accompanied by behavior change campaigns that shift social norms and raise awareness about the harms of early on girls, their children, and the wider society.
Underpinning this all should be the application of a multi-sectoral approach entailing coordinated efforts across multiple sectors, including the state and civil society. Government policy and funding must prioritize women’s rights and define the responsibilities of different government arms, including health, finance, justice, social welfare, youth, and education agencies.
Providing scholarships and financial incentives, such as conditional cash transfers, can help keep girls in school and diminish the economic incentives for early marriage. Rwanda is a good example, having achieved significant increases in girls’ school enrolment and a corresponding decrease in child marriage.
Another noteworthy case is Ethiopia’s investment in the Berhane Hewan programme, which combines education with community awareness. Girls who participated were 90% less likely to be married before the age of 15 compared to those not in the programme.
Enhancing the capacity to collect, analyse, and use sex-disaggregated data for policymaking is also crucial for informed decisions. This data can highlight disparities and guide targeted interventions.
Moreover, implementing education programs that include comprehensive sex education is vital. Such programs empower girls with knowledge about reproductive health and their rights, thereby reducing rates of child marriage and early pregnancies.
In Mozambique, the Gender Strategy for the Education Sector aims to create equal rights and opportunities for girls in the education sector. While a strategy like this is geared towards equality in education, if data collection around child marriages is incorporated it can produce results on strategy’s impact on child marriage.
Governments must tackle the root causes of child marriage
To genuinely protect and empower young women, governments must address the underlying causes of girls’ vulnerabilities. This includes tackling drivers such as conflict and climate crisis, improving social protection systems, introducing legal reforms to prohibit child marriage without exception, and ensuring the effective implementation of laws.
Efforts must also be made to challenge and change harmful cultural and religious practices that undermine the rights of women and girls.
Critically, African Union Member States must universally ratify and implement the Maputo Protocol and the African Children’s Charter. To adequately equip girls to thrive in the 21st century, they must also discharge the education and gender equality obligations they have committed to under Agenda 2063 and Africa’s Agenda for Children 2040.
*Thandi is not her real name.
Deborah Nyokabi is Gender Policy Expert, Equality Now.
LONDON, Jul 23 2024 (IPS) – Kenya’s President William Ruto has withdrawn the tax-increasing Finance Bill that sparked mass protests. He has sacked his cabinet and the head of the police has resigned. But the anger many feel hasn’t gone away, and protests continue.
The protests have brought Kenya’s Gen Z onto the political stage, with young people – over 65 per cent of the population – at the forefront. Since the protests began, they’ve made full use of social media to share views, explain the impact of proposed changes, organise protests and raise funds to help those injured or arrested.
These protests have been different to those in the past, much more organic than previous opposition-organised demonstrations. The movement has brought people together across the ethnic lines politicians have so often exploited in the past.
People have protested even in the knowledge that security force violence is guaranteed. At least 50 people have died so far. As protests have continued, people have increasingly demanded accountability for the killings and the many other acts of state violence.
Out-of-touch elite
The Finance Bill would have imposed a levy on a range of everyday essentials such as bread, and taxes on internet use, mobile phones and money transfer services. Women would have been further hit by an increase in tax on menstrual products. For many, this was simply too much to bear in a context of high youth unemployment and rising costs.
The tax increases were among conditions demanded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for a US$3.9 billion package, along with the IMF’s usual prescription of spending cuts and privatisation that generally hit the poorest people hardest.
Ruto has continued to blame his predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, for lavish spending on grand projects. But Ruto was Kenyatta’s vice president, and only broke with his long-time ally after he wasn’t chosen as his party’s next presidential candidate.
To protesters, Ruto is as out of touch as the presidents before him. Opponents accuse him of trying to boost his presence on the world stage, including by offering to have Kenya lead an international policing mission to violence-torn Haiti, rather than addressing domestic problems. They see him as too willing to meet the demands of US-dominated financial institutions such as the IMF rather than stand up for Kenyans.
Problems such as corruption and patronage have run through multiple governments. Politicians are accused of enjoying lavish lifestyles insulated from people’s everyday problems. Kenya’s members of parliament are proportionally the second-highest paid in the world, earning 76 times average per capita GDP. Even so, corruption allegations are rife.
Ruto’s administration attempted to create another layer of government jobs a court ruled the move unconstitutional. He created new staffed offices for the first lady, deputy first lady and prime ministerial spouse, a decision dropped due to the protests. The proposed budget was filled with such examples of the government planning to spend more on itself.
Broken promises and state violence
For many, the sense of betrayal is heightened because when Ruto won an unexpected and narrow election victory in 2022, it was on a platform of being the champion of struggling people, promising to tackle the high cost of living. But costs kept increasing, and Ruto quickly reneged on promises to stop electricity price rises. He axed subsidies on energy, fuel and maize flour. The government’s 2023 Finance Act included a raft of new taxes and levies.
These measures sparked opposition-organised protests, and the reaction was state violence that left six people dead. The pattern is consistent. Kenyan security forces seem to know no response to protest other than violence.
On 25 June, the worst day of violence in the 2024 protests, security forces fired live ammunition at protesters, killing several, including some reportedly targeted by police snipers perched atop buildings. They’ve also used rubber bullets, teargas and water cannon, including against media and medical personnel. Protest leaders and social media influencers have been targeted for abduction and arrest.
🇰🇪We call for the immediate release of peaceful #protesters violently repressed and unlawfully detained for opposing a controversial #FinanceBill. The Kenyan authorities must uphold citizens’ right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by the national constitution. #Kenyaprotestspic.twitter.com/pPW1m7P1Xc
On 25 June, some protesters briefly attempted to storm parliament and started fires, but there have been accusations that politicians have paid people to infiltrate the protest movement and instigate acts of violence to try to justify security force brutality. Media providing live coverage of protests have reported receiving threats from the authorities telling them to shut down and internet access has been disrupted. Influencers have had their accounts suspended.
Although Ruto eventually pledged to take action where there is video evidence of police violence, he’s also been criticised for saying little about protest deaths and previously praised police actions. He accused ‘organised criminals’ of hijacking the protests and called the attempt to storm parliament ‘treasonous’.
Politicians have repeatedly smeared civil society organisations, claiming they’re being used by foreign powers to fund protests. Ruto, without any evidence, has accused the US-based Ford Foundation of helping finance unrest.
Demands for change
Over a month on, protests demanding Ruto’s resignation continue. It’s not just about the economy, and it’s not just about Ruto. It’s about the rejection of a whole political class and its way of governing. Trust in the institutions of government is very low.
Dialogue has been promised, but many feel it will be superficial. The government’s response to the protests should be to listen and consult deeply – and then change. People have shown they have power. They’ve shown that a system where they elect a political elite every few years to make decisions for them isn’t enough. They’ve shown they want something better.
Editor’s note: The IJ is reprinting some of the late Beth Ashley’s columns. This is from 2008.
If I sound a bit groggy, let me explain.
I have been up late, night after night, watching the Olympic Games.
I realize some of you are indifferent, but the Olympics, to me, are a four-year high point. It’s not just about athletics, but about the human spirit and the unifying force of excellence, wherever it is found.
When an athlete bobbles a chance for Olympic glory, I feel equally sad whether he or she is from the United States or the Lesser Antilles.
On the other hand, if someone lands a spectacular win, I am wowed whether or not the athlete is one of ours.
Not to say it isn’t great fun when a hometown person takes the gold. I was as thrilled as the rest of you by the performances of Michael Phelps. One of the pluses, of course, was that Phelps seemed so nice. A hero, without being media-bland handsome.
Most events are mesmerizing: swimming, gymnastics, track and field. But beach volleyball? Spare me. Synchronized diving? Pfft — until the Chinese showed how it was done.
I’m pretty addicted to track and field, dating from the days of Kip Keino, Lasse Virén, Frank Shorter, Wilma Rudolph and Valeriy Borzov. But I’ll stay up late for any of it (thanks for the torment, NBC).
The first sprints were a relief: athletes of color at last!
The most stirring part of an Olympics, to me, is the opening parades, when the athletes and the flags of participants roll out one by one, each entrant so proud, so gorgeously young, so fit.
The flag — and the importance — of each nation, be it Malawi or Mongolia, gets equal time.
We are reminded that human dreams and aspirations have equal value in all parts of the Earth. Kirsty Coventry from Zimbabwe: you go, girl!
The current Olympics — like those for most of a century — have an overlay of global politics. We all remember 1936, when track star Jesse Owens, an African American, stuck it to the Nazis and their theories of Aryan superiority. Ever since, it seems, the competition has been for the highest medal count among nations: did we not, throughout the Cold War, try to smother the Russians? (Did my 12-year-old son not weep in 1972, when the Russians — unfairly — beat us in basketball?) Are we not now, not very subliminally, locked in a race with the Chinese, whose rising economic superiority threatens our self-image as kings of the world?
A book I just read about North and South Korea points out the geopolitical ramifications of the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, which tipped the diplomatic balance throughout Asia. When your country hosts the Olympics, you become a big player on the international stage.
So yes, the games are political, but they are also an opportunity to look beyond all that.
They are a time to focus on what unites us, rather than what pits us against each other.
When you see the athletes romping around the field in the closing ceremonies, when you see winners and losers embracing each other, when you sense that each athlete is a world unto himself, with his own aspirations and history, it is hard to divide them by nations.
The camaraderie is palpable, joyous.
We can believe in the possibility of crossover, of continued good will.
When the 2008 games are over, we’ll settle back into business as usual — it was ever thus.
But while the good feelings last, I just want to watch and watch and watch.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, addresses the General Assembly’s 75th session in September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas
ATLANTA, Georgia, Jul 19 2024 (IPS) – Republican Vice-Presidential nominee JD Vance and other speakers at the GOP Convention gleefully referenced the party’s latest icon: a wounded Donald Trump with blood on his face raising his fist in defiance beneath Old Glory’s stars and stripes.
The MAGA party realizes that they have a powerful symbol that will likely return Trump to the White House, because symbols are supremely powerful for both politics and religion. Associated Press photographer Evan Vucci captured the image, one of the most iconic ever recorded in American history. It fits perfectly into the Republican Campaign theme—“Trump is a hero and only he can save us.” The only other comparable photograph is the unforgettable one showing embattled Marines raising the American flag on Iwo Jima during WW II.
Vucci’s photograph framed a bloody former President, wounded in the assassination attempt, heroically pumping his fist in defiance beneath a red, white, and blue flag against a clear blue sky. It was the perfect photo, taken at a moment of extreme peril for American democracy, and sure to win a Pulitzer Prize.
It could be the key visual message that motivates people to side with Trump as a hero and propel him back to the White House. Photojournalist Doug Mills of the New York Times snapped a remarkable photo of the bullet in mid-air just beyond Trump, but Vucci’s stirring image of the wounded former president conveys a much more impactful message of heroism and patriotism.
Americans clearly prefer a tough, vigorous, even pugnacious and younger male leader (even if the image is false) to an old, decrepit President, especially one stammering to express himself and now sidelined with Coronavirus.
MAGA Republicans insist that people should vote for their hero Trump instead of Biden, pictured as a weak old man, or heaven forbid, by a scrappy female like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, or even Republican Nikki Haley.
Aging leaders have been required to prove their virility from time to time throughout history—in ancient Egypt by running around a course, and in Communist China by swimming, or more likely floating, for ten miles in the Yangtze River, as did Mao Tse-tung in 1966.
His claim of fitness, especially in the photo of him swimming, became an icon across China and revived his political fortunes after the disaster of the Great Cultural Revolution.
Americans consider themselves to be a tough breed. That in turn requires a macho man to be our leader. Even if Trump is not really that, the picture of a defiant Trump surviving an assassin’s bullet and pumping his fist is an incredibly powerful icon at this moment of destiny in the nation’s politics.
There were no photos when Lincoln was shot and the Kennedy assassination photos show blurs in the back of a speeding convertible. The only other iconic photo to stir the emotions of patriotic Americans with equally intense feelings would be that snapshot by photographer Joe Rosenthal Showing US Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi.
That picture captured American patriotism so perfectly that it was later sculpted into a colossal statue near the US Capitol in Washington.
Not many people know about semasiography—the science of symbols—but throughout history symbols have had an underlying, supremely powerful influence on religion, politics, and human behavior. This photo of Trump, like the one of the marines, has the capacity to impact people at a visceral level and therefore to change human behavior on a large scale.
There is no question of the overwhelming influence of such a potent symbol at this point in an evenly balanced and fiercely divided, nation.
The way symbols work is like this: they are simple, convey meaning in a generalized sense, and have the capacity to rally multitudes of people, sometimes continuing to evoke allegiance for thousands of years. Many national flags in the modern era include symbols.
The red, white, and blue of the American flag can cause tears to flow, pride to swell the chest, and infuse soldiers with the courage to face cannons on the battlefield.
One of the most omnipresent symbols worldwide is the Christian Cross, which has provided meaning and identity for millions of people over thousands of years. The Nazi Swastika and the Hammer and Sickle rallied Germans and Russians, functioning in a similar way for unbelievably vast numbers of people during WW II.
The swastika, or broken cross, was an ancient Aryan cultural sign, meaning to the Germans “Deutchland Uber Alles,” the racial-political creed of Germany. Hitler was delighted when he found it, knowing he could use it to rally the nation to his banner.
The Soviet hammer and sickle dominated great parts of the globe for much of the Twentieth Century, signifying the rise of the Proletariat. During the Vietnam War, millions of college students protested wearing the peace sign in support of the anti-war movement.
A symbol can carry a different meaning for millions of people, allowing each individual to put his or her own meaning into it, often leading to action. In short, a symbol is a way to capture and intensify personal feelings.
An appropriate and timely icon can be used to lure, move, or drive masses of people toward a desired goal, even if its message is vague and diffuse.
Several modern psychiatrists have focused on symbolism, beginning of course with Freud. The study of semasiography became a major preoccupation of his most prominent successor, Jung. Both knew the power of symbols.
Soon the icon of a defiant Trump—the ultimate American tough guy—will appear on t-shirts and coffee mugs, helping to build a different national culture than the one bequeathed to Americans by Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and others of the Greatest Generation.
This new political culture has already shown its true colors—dominance, retribution, reaction, discrimination, with threats of violence and coercion as the new mechanism of control. Sadly, this is the way history works. Change is coming—prepare for it.
James E. Jennings is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace.
On 1 July, the US Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts, although they don’t enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The decision comes as Donald Trump faces criminal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The question now is whether Trump’s actions will be considered official or unofficial. But it’s unlikely he’ll be tried before the election, and if he returns as president he could pardon himself. Critics claim the Supreme Court ruling violates the spirit of the US Constitution by placing the president above the law.
