Above the Law

Arrogance plus ignorance equals stupidity. -- Pug Mahoney

   "I can do whatever I want," says the president.
   Does this mean he is above the law? Two examples in history come to mind, one in America and one in Germany.
   In 1832, President Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling and carried out his plan to remove the Cherokee and members of other tribes from their home in the Carolinas to Oklahoma -- an episode that became known as "The Trail of Tears."
   One hundred years later, in Germany in 1932, the Hitler regime suspended constitutional guarantees of a free press and other rights after a fire at the Reichstag building, and jailed people suspected of being members of an opposition political party.
   Two other similarities come to mind. One was widespread popular support, regardless of legal and constitutional guarantees. A second was government violation of human rights. The Trail of Tears and the Holocaust both had widespread popular support.
   In America today, there is widespread support for the jailing of refugees, a ban on immigrants of a certain religious tradition, and a refusal by a political leader to comply with the law and Congressional subpoenas.
   So far, however, we still have a free press in America, and news media regularly report details of government violations of legal, moral and constitutional rights, as well as the president's refusal to comply with law.
   Journalists will continue to do so, despite the president's virulent and sometimes obscene assaults on what he calls "fake media," as well as anyone who disagrees with him in any detail on anything he may say or do, even when what he says is proven false by reruns of his own earlier comments as well as neutral, objective fact.
   At the same time, there is substantial pressure on traditional news media and on individual journalists to comply with presidential policies, wishes and desires. In addition to the dismissal and resignation under pressure of diplomats and senior government officials who refuse to toe the presidential obedience line, White House tentacles reach out to the news media in attempts to force removal of journalists who report realities that contradict what the White House insists is "true."
   The most flagrant example is the resignation of Shepard Smith, chief news anchor at Fox News, who left rather than slant his coverage to be favorable to the administration.
   It is true that other major cable news operations have commentators during their prime time evening hours, and they have been critical of the president, just as Fox network commentators praise him.
  It is their right to do so.
  Only at Fox has there been pressure to force news anchors to slant their coverage toward favorability, and not to ask probing or critical questions.
   Will things change? One can only hope, and expect that news operations continue to speak truth to power.
   The First Amendment depends on it.