Professor’s Op-Ed Calls For Unity Against Trump Campaign

By Nikitha B. Reddy, CONTRIBUTING WRITER February 24, 2016

Danielle S. Allen, a Government professor and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, called on Americans across the political spectrum to organize against businessman Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in a Sunday op-ed that has generated widespread reaction.

Allen said she found the need to write the op-ed for The Washington Post after Trump’s victory in Saturday’s Republican primary in South Carolina. Describing the primary as a “turning point,” Allen wrote in the piece that voters should recognize that there is not much time left to change the outcome of the Republican presidential nomination contest.

In the op-ed, which now has over 5000 online comments, Allen examined the dangers she perceived in Trump’s rise to political prominence, which she believes is a product of growing divisions in the United States. Instead of choosing not to challenge Trump, Americans must support “coordination across party lines and across divisions within parties,” Allen wrote.

“We, the people, need to find somewhere, buried in the recesses of our fading memories, the capacity to make common cause against this formidable threat to our equally shared liberties,” she wrote. “The time is now.”

Allen said she has received a wide range of opinions in response to her article, from the candidate’s supporters as well as his critics.

She wrote in her piece that Trump’s popularity has allowed her to understand how Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was able to take control of Germany in the early 1930s. In an interview, Allen said she is not focused on exploring the direct comparison between Hitler and Trump, a point she also made in her op-ed.

“The fact that particular historical moments can teach us things that help us understand different moments doesn’t mean that there is a straight comparison between them,” she said. “The thing that requires comparison is the question of when and how do demagogues acquire power. That’s what is the relevant comparison.”

History professor Charles S. Maier ’60, a specialist in German history and former Crimson editorial chair, said the underlying question in Allen’s op-ed was over whether divisions in the United States today mirror those of the Weimar Republic, the democratic German state that preceded the Nazi regime.

While Maier said he does not believe the comparison is accurate, he said the rhetoric Trump uses is pervasive in Western politics.

“There are candidates who appeal to this sort of populism, anti-foreign impulse of feeling that their governments are too remote and don’t care about them,” he said. “That is a widespread feeling throughout western Europe and the United States, and I think in that sense it produces ugly responses that stigmatize foreigners.”

Danielle S. Allen: Of The Democratic National Committee (DNC)

Allen: The sacrifices of soldiers are important, should not be forgotten, and deserve honor. We don’t even need the lesson of current events to know that. As a society we have well-developed habits and practices for honoring soldiers, firefighters, and police officers. We may not do all we should, but we do expect to build monuments to their heroism and to read their names out one by one.

We are not, however, very good at seeing some mundane sacrifices, and we certainly don’t honor them. Our economic policies ask all kinds of sacrifices of citizens, which we only nervously acknowledge. When the Federal Reserve decided to increase interest rates in the spring of 2000 to slow down an “overheated” economy, its members expected that their actions would, among other things, generate new unemployment. Now, we may all be comfortable with the notion that slowing the economy and generating some unemployment is good for everyone, even for those who will now find themselves unemployed—even the newly unemployed may accept the macroeconomic arguments justifying the policy—but this does not diminish the pain or difficulty that the newly unemployed may experience. That they endure it and persevere in seeking jobs and abiding by the law is also a sacrifice.

Or let me offer an example that’s closer to my own home. In the 1950s and ’60s the administration of the University of Chicago was worried that the increasing poverty of the South Side Chicago neighborhood, which had recently evolved into a primarily African-American area, would scare parents and cut into student enrollments dramatically enough to endanger the future of the university. The administration considered moving the university out of Chicago. Instead, it launched an aggressive policy of urban renewal to secure an upper-income, mixed-race neighborhood for itself in its own immediate vicinity. The project displaced at least 3,500 lower-income families, both black and white.

By: Diana Schaub, Danielle Allen
July 16, 2015

In the Winter 2014/15 CRB, Diana Schaub reviewed Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, by Danielle Allen. We’re very pleased to have them discuss here the questions raised by the book and review. Danielle S. Allen, the author of three books prior to Our Declaration, is the UPS Foundation Professor in School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study. Diana Schaub, a frequent contributor to CRB and other journals, is a professor of political science at Loyola University Maryland, and a member of the Hoover Institution’s Jill and Boyd Smith Task Force on the Virtues of a Free Society.

 This is not what the Deceleration Of Independence, was about in part, it was in fact a Declaration Of War, against British Taxes against the New Colony Of America.

 Danielle S. Allen- Democratic Party:

 Is there a conspiracy to mislead the true foundation of the Declaration Of Independence ?  Was there a conspiracy to debunk the Preambles of the Declaration Of Independence, because of what John Adams stated against King Of England ?

 It all started here, with our investigations.

Unique Copy of Declaration of Independence Turns Up In London

The Sussex Declaration of Independence Update

Sussex: Declaration of Independence Of The United States of America

The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America:...

Professor Danielle Allen Emily Sneff of The West Sussex Record Offi...

Harvard University Unsullied by Falsehood: The Signing Of The Decla...

"The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen States Of America July 4, 1776 " by William Floyd  a official Preamble of our Founding Fathers.

Views: 60

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Burn it !!!

Allen said she found the need to write the op-ed for The Washington Post...

This by itself puts her in the class of counterfeit.

She twists truth every way to Sunday to sucker people just like counterfeit money.

Her words my sound pleasant enough but inside she is blacker than coal.

This is demonic garbage.

Be wise and do not get fooled by her type.

Hi Gregory,

 Thats what I have been trying to say, she debunked Preambles to the Declaration Of Independence, and as well as the Declaration Of Independence.

 Kind of weird hu ?????

Not weird---pure evil.

Danielle S. Allen is misguided as being delusional. All DEMs are. Trump's rise was not because of the identity divisions created by Barack Obama and the devious DEMs. Trump got elected to reverse the course that Mao Marxist (Obama) put this country on - against their will of the people.

With that, to Ms. Allen I ask, who really cares what you think. You are in the minority.

I recommend for you to simply accept the results as we did for eight miserable years. ....or go just away. America has more than enough misguided malcontents and there isn't a need for any more.

LOVE that sign.

I'm stealing it!!!


 Everything is ok, a large group of people took serous interest in what we exposed, a basic way to undo these issues.

 A posting will be shared here, what you all decided to do with the information, will be up to you. I know most do not understand yet, but, this is all I can say for now.





Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service