Trump revives 'with us or against us,' labeling anything he opposes 'terrorism' | Opinion
Americans have to decide how important our rights are and how far we're willing to let presidents deviate from the law.
As American presidents go, George W. Bush and Donald Trump share a political party and not much else.
They emerged from very different versions of the Republican Party. Bush, born and bred old-school GOP, led an expansionist party favoring free markets at the start of the 21st century. Trump, a gauche disrupter, won the presidency twice in the past decade by running against all that, embracing isolationism peppered with illogical tariffs.
So when Trump and his administration start echoing Bush's previously retired rhetoric from the so-called global war on terror, it can be quite jarring.
I've developed a little tic in the last week or so. Every time I hear or read something from Team Trump that reverberates the "with us or against us" rhetoric of Bush's administration, I say to myself, "Freedom fries."
Remember that ‒ when Republicans renamed the U.S. Capitol cafeteria french fries because France didn't support America's invasion of Iraq? That was unserious to the point of stupidity. Could we get there again?
Paging Nancy Mace … paging U.S. Rep. Nancy Macy, Republican of South Carolina … as an equally childish French lawmaker suggested this week that America should return the Statue of Liberty to his country.
"Petition to rename them 'America fries,'" Mace responded on social media.
Oh man. The aughts have returned. Is Nickelback coming back, too?
Trump starts hurling the 'terrorist' label at his whim
Bush and Trump face very different presidencies. Bush was less than eight months into his first term when the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks happened. He laid down a marker nine days later in a joint session of Congress, with a speech that sent a message to other nations that was also fired as a warning here at home.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," Bush said, in what became a regular rallying call.
That opened the door to a weaponization of patriotism. If you didn't support what Bush and his Republican allies wanted to do ‒ like diverting attention and military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq ‒ you were somehow sympathizing with terrorists.
Fast-forward to last week, when Trump attempted to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student with a green card, for helping to lead campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza after the Hamas attack.
Trump on social media suggested that Khalil supported terrorism. But his administration offered zero proof, and a judge blocked the deportation for now.
Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, responded on social media Sunday in a way that really clarified what is going on, noting the return to Bush-era claims that our government can do anything in the name of fighting terror against anyone by calling them a "terrorist" while also accusing anyone who questions that of supporting terrorism.
Republicans would be wise to limit how much Trump weaponizes things
Trump and his team have tried the same approach when it comes to mass deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, in contradiction of a federal judge's temporary prohibition.
Trump also mulled last week labeling as "domestic terrorists" anyone who attacks Tesla dealerships because they're angry at Elon Musk's attempt to dismember the federal government.
Side note: Protesting at Tesla dealerships is a First Amendment right. Causing damage to Tesla dealerships is vandalism and should be treated as a property crime, not terrorism.
Jaicomo told me that he sees Republicans and Democrats as responsible for over-empowering presidents in the past two decades, with members of Congress "slowly shaving off" their rights to counterbalance the executive branch as designed by our Constitution.
Is it any wonder Trump now openly flirts with sidelining our third branch of government, the federal courts?
"It's important to remember, this is not some game of politics," Jaicomo said. "At this point, we're talking about the very fundamental aspects of how our constitutional system, the separation of powers and checks and balances, work."
The attorney added this warning for those who might be enjoying this as a partisan sport: "Being able to wield the government as a weapon against your enemies is dangerous because, at some point in the future, your enemies will get that weapon."
Remember that Trump pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters
Gabriel Rubin, a professor of justice studies at Montclair State University, in 2020 published his book "Presidential Rhetoric on Terrorism under Bush, Obama and Trump." He told me that terrorism as a term is "ill-defined" and easy to manipulate in politics.
He sees Trump using it against people he sees as "boogeymen," typically immigrants, especially if they're Muslims.
"I think he just chooses his enemies and then calls them terrorists as a pejorative," Rubin said, adding that he sees "complete cognitive dissonance" in that since one of Trump's first acts in office this year was to pardon or commute the sentences of criminals who attacked police officers and destroyed property during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The professor wasn't singling out all Jan. 6 protesters as terrorists. But Rubin noted that for "at least a decade, people have been saying that the bigger threat in America is the far-right white power groups than anything else" when it comes to domestic terrorism.
Americans have to decide how important our rights are
"With us or against us" usually has an audience in America. That audience doesn't consider the ramifications of the tribalization for patriotism and personal rights.
You may not like what protesters on campus say about Israel and Gaza. You may believe Trump when he claims that everyone he deported to El Salvador was a "terrorist," even if he offers no proof. You may want people who protest in front of Tesla car lots to be locked up.
You may support the suspension of constitutional protections and due process under the law.
If so, you support surrendering your own rights the next time a president you don't like lives in the White House.
Follow Paste BN columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan