Jon Stewart and US President Barack Obama are men of a similar age with, on some days, a similar role. Sometimes it falls to both of them to help their fellow Americans digest what is happening around them, to make sense of it. On Wednesday last week it was the murder by a white supremacist of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.
The TV host did something unusual, dispensing with his usual gag-packed opening to deliver a joke-free monologue. Obama, by contrast, did something that has become all too usual, delivering what is now a rhetorical genre of its own: The presidential post-massacre speech.
“I’ve had to make statements like this too many times,” he said.
By one count, it was the 14th time he had to speak in such a way after such a mass shooting.
Stewart’s emphasis was on the US’ enduring struggle over race. Obama chose to focus on the country’s equally stubborn problem with guns. However, what was striking was that on both questions — what writer Gary Younge rightly calls the US’ “twin pathologies” — both the presenter and the president struck the same tone. They matched each other in weary resignation.
Stewart said Americans had been forced to peer into a “gaping racial wound that will not heal.” Then, with comic’s timing, he added that he was confident that: “By staring into that and seeing it for what it is we still don’t do jack shit.”
GUN EPIDEMIC
For his part, Obama began with a declaration that: “It is in our power to do something about the guns epidemic,” but then he dampened any expectation of action: “I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now.” Mindful of a hostile Congress that has thwarted him at every turn, all he could promise was that US would, “at some point,” have “to come to grips with” the issue of gun violence, and “shift how we think about” it.
You can see why both men — nearing the end of their terms of office — have given up hope that change is on its way. When it comes to both race and guns, there have been episodes so shocking that people assumed action was bound to follow. And yet the brutality, especially police brutality, shown toward black Americans — those doing nothing more threatening than walking or breathing or swimming or praying — goes on.
When in 2012 a 20-year-old man walked into Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 children and six adults, many assumed this would finally expose the limits of US indulgence of gun rights. Obama declared enough was enough and proposed a raft of gun control measures. They seemed to be making progress until the National Rifle Association got busy, pressuring wavering senators facing tough re-election battles and the effort was crushed.
Race and guns are the birth defects of the American republic, their distorting presence visible in the US constitution itself. The very first article of that founding document spelled out its view that those “bound to service for a term of years” — slaves — would count as “three fifths of all other Persons.” Meanwhile, the second amendment enshrines “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
The three-fifths rule was eventually discarded, but the legacy of slavery hangs heavy. In South Carolina the flag of the slave-owning Confederacy still flies. The church where those worshipers were gunned down was on Calhoun Street, named in honor of a luminary of 19th-century white supremacy. As for guns, a rule written in the age of the musket, designed to protect an infant republic from the return of King George’s redcoats, still holds — allowing a 21-year-old bent on provoking a race war easy, legal access to a weapon that lets him commit what, in a different context, would be called an act of terror.
A rule written in the musket age, to protect an infant republic from the return of King George’s redcoats, still holds.
The result is paralysis and a desperate fatalism. The paradoxes are obvious. The US, the land of restless innovation, is shackled to its past. The US sees its own wounds and cannot heal them, its hands tied by a constitution that in almost every other respect is a manifesto for liberation.
This is obviously a catastrophe for Americans and not only because of the damage guns and racism inflict both separately and when they collide, as they did so devastatingly in Charleston. It also feeds a corrosive cynicism. Americans are already skeptical of their democracy, which can seem more like a dynastic plutocracy, a perennial battle of the House of Bush against the House of Clinton, bankrolled by unseen corporate giants.
However, when they see a US president apparently impotent in the face of the gun menace, what are they meant to think of their own power to change things for the better?
DESTINY IN THEIR HANDS
Americans like to tell themselves anything is possible, that their destiny is in their own hands. Politicians describe the country as “this great experiment in self-government,” insisting they can make the US anew if they want to. Yet the persistence of arms and racism and armed racism suggests that the people are, in important ways, powerless: A nation still ruled by its ancestors; a nation that has forgotten the wisdom of one of its greatest revolutionaries, Thomas Paine, who understood that “government is for the living and not for the dead; it is the living only that has any right in it.”
All this matters beyond the US too. The US’ influence in the world does not rest solely on its wealth and military might. It also requires the US to be admired. As former US president Bill Clinton said five years after the Iraq invasion: “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”
Every one of these mass killings, or police shooting of innocent black men and women, undermines that example. It makes the US look like a basket case, a country that seems to think it is normal for a toddler to find a gun in his mother’s purse and accidentally shoot himself dead, a country that saw 12,600 of its people shot dead last year and believes itself incapable of doing anything about it.
To change will mean looking to the rest of the world and recognizing that, as Obama said, most “advanced countries” do not have this problem.
It will require a reckoning with the circumstances of the US’ birth — and the courage to say that the US is not the country it was more than two centuries ago and can no longer be bound by those rules: That it has changed — and that it can be so much better.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
On the last day of the extended legislative session on Friday last week, the Legislative Yuan, with a slight majority held by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), continued to refuse to review the government’s annual budget for this year, which is already overdue. It was the first time in Taiwan’s constitutional history that the government budget was not reviewed in its supposed legislative session. Instead, the opposition rushed to pass three controversial bills, which many people have criticized as self-serving. Since the Executive Yuan submitted its annual budget proposal to the Legislative Yuan in August last
RSS