By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Sanders condemned President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles during immigration protests as a move towards authoritarianism, noting the action was taken without the request of local officials. He cited this, along with Trump’s attacks on the media, legal firms, universities, and judges, as evidence of a president exceeding his constitutional authority and undermining the rule of law. Sanders emphasized the critical role of Republican members of Congress in upholding the Constitution and preventing further erosion of democratic norms. This action follows widespread criticism of the deployment and mirrors similar presidential actions only seen during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Read the original article here
Bernie Sanders’ warning about the creeping tide of authoritarianism following Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles is a stark reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions. This action, seemingly taken without the consent or even knowledge of local authorities, raises serious concerns about executive overreach and the erosion of checks and balances.
The deployment itself appears questionable. Reports suggest no active protests or emergencies requiring such a drastic measure were underway in Los Angeles. This raises the unsettling possibility that the deployment was a preemptive, or even entirely symbolic, move aimed at asserting federal dominance. The lack of transparency and the absence of a clear and present danger only amplify these worries.
This incident shines a light on a deeper, more systemic problem: the reluctance of Congress to effectively counter executive overreach. The claim that Congress has essentially redefined the timeframe for legislative review of emergency orders, allowing them to stretch out for a full year, highlights a critical failure of oversight. This inaction emboldens those who might seek to circumvent the established processes of government.
The situation in Los Angeles is especially troubling because it seems to follow a pattern. Trump’s actions consistently appear designed to exploit perceived emergencies or even to manufacture them – as a means to justify the expansion of executive power. This manipulation of information, combined with a seemingly willing complicity or at least a lack of forceful opposition, from certain segments of the political establishment, indicates a broader crisis of accountability.
The fact that the deployment was reportedly ordered by Trump, not by local officials who understand the ground situation, raises further concerns about federal intrusion on local affairs. It’s a stark example of the potential dangers of centralized power, overriding local needs and perspectives.
The absence of a genuine crisis in Los Angeles only serves to heighten the sense of foreboding. Was this a trial run, a test of the system’s response capabilities? The question hangs in the air, emphasizing the potential for future, more aggressive, and less justified interventions. This incident isn’t just about Los Angeles; it’s about the precedent it sets, and the potential ramifications for other cities and states.
Many argue that this situation underscores the consequences of political apathy and a dysfunctional political system. The failure to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, combined with a lack of vigorous public engagement in the political process, contributes to a climate where such actions can be taken without serious and widespread condemnation.
It is imperative that political leaders, not just Senator Sanders, take a firm stand against this pattern of executive overreach. The silence, or weak responses, from some quarters only embolden those who would exploit it. The defense of democratic principles requires a concerted and unwavering commitment from all those who value them. Ignoring the warnings, or treating them as mere political posturing, risks sacrificing the very foundations of a free and just society.
The deployment, even if later shown to be unnecessary or unfounded, serves as a powerful symbol of the potential for authoritarian tendencies to take root within a democracy. This situation underscores the need for continuous vigilance and a strong commitment to safeguarding the principles of democratic governance against those who would seek to undermine them. The question remains: will the warnings finally be heeded before it’s too late? The time for complacency is over. The challenge demands the immediate and decisive action of those who value democratic principles and the rule of law.