ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict Essay (Article)
Business conflicts are inevitable. Conflicts may range from small disagreements to big and costly disagreements. Sometimes, if left unattended, minor conflicts may easily become major conflicts, thereby creating devastating consequences for the parties involved.
Businesses may suffer reputational damage, time and resource wastage, and the loss of future investment opportunities (among other ramifications) from business conflicts (Davis, 2012). To avoid these consequences, many businesses prefer to avoid conflict altogether, as opposed to solving them.
However, some businesses are unsuccessful in doing so. The Trump Organization is one such entity that has failed to avoid conflict in the last decade.
This article delves into the intrigues of a recently concluded dispute between the organization and New York-based licensing firm, ALM Unlimited. This paper explains the details of the conflict, including the cost of the conflict, the resolution of the conflict, and the undertones of the disagreement.
Informed of its role in helping the flamboyant real estate developer, Donald Trump, to secure a lucrative clothing contract with Phillips-Van Heusen (PVH) Company, ALM Unlimited named the Trump Organization in a lawsuit for unlawful termination of remittances to its organization (Clarke, 2013). In its defense, the Trump Organization claimed it had wrongfully remitted payments to ALM Unlimited.
The company also said its payment to ALM Unlimited was supposed to be a one-off payment (McCoy, 2011). Moreover, according to Donald Trump, ALM Unlimited played a minimal role in helping the Trump Organization to secure the multimillion-dollar contract with PVH.
In his submissions at a New York court, Donald Trump revealed that his company had received above $3,000,000 in royalties from the contentious deal (Clarke, 2013).
Cost of the Conflict
The cost of conflict is the amount of money a party aims to gain or lose from a business conflict. However, Davis (2012) says that when businesses are in conflict, the cost of the conflict often transcends the amount of money quoted in lawsuits, or the fees paid out to the lawyers.
Instead, he says, “The financial and emotional effects, wasted time, and lost productivity of businesses and individuals contribute to the overall costs of conflict” (Davis, 2012, p. 32). An overexposure of conflict may further lead to more damages, especially when the warring parties have to do business with other companies.
Observers have said that the conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited transcends the cost of litigation (McCoy, 2011). They argue that the Trump Organization largely bases its success from the strength of the “Trump” brand.
Therefore, an overexposure of the brand to business conflict paints a bad picture for the company because it hurts the business. McCoy (2011) affirms this fact when he says overexposure is bad for business because other organizations will be hesitant to do business with a defamed brand.
Despite the merit of these arguments, this paper acknowledges the importance of understanding conflict on a case-by-case basis. Stated differently, the business conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited presents unique dynamics that inform its cost of conflict.
Concisely, based on the arguments advanced by the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited, the amount of contention was about $75,000 annually. This is the cost of the conflict. This figure comes from the amount of money paid by the Trump organization to ALM Unlimited (since the two parties started business).
In detail, since the Trump organization entered into the clothing business with Phillips-Van Heusen, it has paid about $350,000 to ALM. The organization made these payments between 2004 and 2008 when it stopped the payments (this has been a four-year stretch).
Based on calculations of the amount received by ALM international over the four-year stretch, the company wanted periodical payments of $75,000 annually.
Resolution of Conflict
Businesses choose to resolve conflicts in different ways. Some choose to resolve conflicts through personal agreements (business-to-business agreements); others choose to identify an arbitrator to mediate the conflict, while many businesses seek a legal solution to conflict resolution. The conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited ended through a legal solution.
A Supreme Court judge, based in New York, ruled that the Trump Organization had no case to answer in the above-mentioned business conflict (Clarke, 2013). The judge sidestepped a sitting jury, which heard the case for close to a week, by issuing a direct order that dismissed the case because of lack of sufficient evidence to show that the two organizations had a binding contract. This ruling ended the four-year conflict.
It is often difficult to predict the ramifications of business conflicts, or their end. However, for ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization, their conflict was resolved through legal means, without any serious ramifications for any of the parties. The resolution of conflict through the courts should however be regarded as a last resort for doing so because less expensive and expeditious methods exist for solving such conflicts (outside courts).
Arbitration is one example of an inexpensive and expeditious process for solving business conflicts. Nonetheless, regardless of the nature or magnitude of business conflicts, they should be resolved expeditiously because delaying the conflict resolution process only worsens the outcome.
Clarke, K. (2013). The Donald Triumphs at Trial over Clothing Royalties. Web.
Davis, P. (2012). A model for strategy implementation and conflict resolution in the franchise business. Strategy & Leadership, 40(5), 32 – 38.
McCoy, K. (2011). Donald Trump Faces Lawsuits over Business Deals. Web.
Immigration in Trump’s Candidate Speech Essay
The elections in the United States of America are just about to happen. The Republican Party candidate Donald Trump has been speaking against the current immigration laws. Trump’s immigration speech in Arizona in the month of August raised fundamental issues.
Trip to Mexico
The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made a key note speech in Arizona on the immigration services of the US. He castigated his opponent from the Democratic Party for being part of an administration that has let down the American people (Dove, 2016). He had just met the Mexican President in Mexico concerning the influx of immigrants who pose great challenges to the American people. He discussed with the president about the importance of stopping contraband and illegal immigrants across the border.
He also expects the Mexican government to finance the building of a wall to separate the two countries. The wall will have both top and underground sensors. The changes that are critical to the American people can only happen once the people change the government through an election to make him president. He blames the politicians because “they won’t talk about them” (Dove, 2016, p. 2). They “won’t report on them” (Dove, 2016, p. 2). Special interests only use their money to cover the immigration challenges. The immigration system only serves the current regime and their interests but not the citizens of America.
It is not everyone who applies to become a citizen that should qualify. The immigration system must be very selective to prevent people who do not have good intentions for the country. The open borders and sanctuary cities have caused the deaths of many Americans and the disintegration of morals. Sarah Root died in the hands of an illegal immigrant that the immigration system set free after arresting him.
The 2011 report indicated that about 25,000 homicides were as a result of illegal immigrants already in prison. And each year the country spends tens of billions of dollars on illegal immigrants. The money is so much that it could help to save many at risk-students with a voucher (Dove, 2016). The majority of these immigrants are lower-skilled workers and yet they compete with the American citizens for jobs. They are a liability to the nation. The media and the ruling regime only discuss on how to meet their needs and yet they are not citizens. Trump thinks that the main issue he will handle is the well-being of the American people and not the needs of the illegal immigrants.
Trump says that Hillary Clinton’s main concern is the separation of families of the illegal immigrants. It means that her concern is not for the American people. Many Americans have lost their lives due to the loop holes in the immigration system that the regime supports. According to Trump, Clinton and the Obama administration supports the open borders and the sanctuary cities. They also support the rules that allow illegal immigrants to be set free. As a result, they start their criminal activities that result in deaths and moral degradation of the American principles (Dove, 2016). Hillary’s amnesty in her first 100 days to provide health care to them is at the cost of the taxpayers. It would increase the federal budget. She would also allow the low-skilled immigrants to take up American jobs.
Trump’s Solution to the Immigration Problem
Donald Trump promises to enforce the construction of a wall along the Southern Border. He thinks that this is where the main problem of the immigration failures arises. The wall will have security measures for surveillance and sensors. He would also employ manpower to enhance security measures. However, the Mexican people must pay for the wall.
The Trump administration will ensure that the immigration rules do not allow for the release of an illegal immigrant. It will only release them to their country of origin. As long as they are in the country they will be under confinement.
His administration will not tolerate any crime from aliens. The statistics indicate that “there are at least 2 million criminal aliens inside the country” (Dove, 2016, p. 3). When he wins the election, he will embark on the removal exercise to take them back to their countries. Others have also evaded justice.
He will stop any funds that go to the Sanctuary Cities. The cities that refuse to work with this rule will not receive any funds from his administration (Dove, 2016). The congress will help in passing the legislations that ensure harmony between the state and the federal authorities.
His government will also stop issuing visas to places where there is poor screening procedures. He will work with the Homeland Security and other state organs to list the countries that have failed on screening measures. His administration will then suspend issuance of visas to such countries because they are promoting crime either directly or indirectly.
He will work on making sure that the countries destined for deportation accepts their people back home (Dove, 2016). Trump’s administration will also complete the biometric tracking system. He will protect Americans through the “E-Verify” (Dove, 2016, p. 3) and reform the immigration department.
According to Trump, Hillary does not support the welfare of the American citizens. She works with the wealthy who have benefited from the system. He is the right person to lead America. His immigration vision makes him a strong contender for the position.
Dove, T. (2016). Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech. Web.
Donald Trump: His Political Course and Contribution as a President Essay
Donald Trump, a well-established multi-billionaire, a successful real estate developer and a distinguished celebrity, is a controversial but prominent figure in modern history. Despite major analysts’ predictions, his presidential election victory became an ultimate event, and Trump’s “drive, persistence, and eloquence astonished the whole world” (Krylov par. 1). Though there are many contradictive opinions regarding Trump’s personality, his political course, and current contribution to the American society as a President, despite his lack of knowledge and experience in a political sphere, his work may have a positive outcome for all spheres of the US community.
Leaders’ background experiences and beliefs shape how they make decisions. The history of Donald Trump’s family, its values, his upbringing, and further education substantively formed the character of a future American President (Saunders par. 4). His grandfather, Friedrich Drumpf, was managing a successful restaurant business during the gold rush in the 1890s, and this fortune let his son, Fred Trump, build his own real estate company. Donald Trump was the fourth child in the family, and alongside his siblings, he was raised to be inconceivably ambitious and hard-working, with the belief he was “destined for greatness as a king” (Sherman 11). During the study in a private school and Fordham University, Trump learned about discipline and experienced the first achievements, this success aroused his interest in the family business, and he closed his first deal when he was only twenty-six. His further incredible success in real estate industries and a luxurious flash lifestyle made him highly recognizable; this popularity, along with his charisma and the sounding promises, let him win the race for the White House.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was distinguished mainly by his authenticity and his focus on the US internal politics. As a true leader who is responsible for his words by the actions, Trump was supported for his straight answers and direct communication with the voting public. According to his contemporaries, “he had elevated himself to a special truth-teller status” (Blair 15). His main vision could be described as “America First,” which means the increase of workplaces for Americans, economic growth of the country stimulated by the domestic products and the prohibition of the illegal immigration, serving the interests of the USA on the international scene. Even though his campaign rhetoric was sometimes factually incorrect and offensive toward women, Mexicans, and Muslims, and particular political decisions did not meet with general approval, Donald Trump has received the support of the vast majority of the Americans.
Evaluating Trump’s work and his contribution to society, there is no escaping the fact that this leader is standing by his words, mostly focusing on the growth of the Americans’ material well-being. Unemployment and poverty rates are declining through the creation of new workspaces for citizens, not least because American manufacturing was brought back, and the government supports small businesses. A considerable number of Americans enlarged the amount of their savings and feel more confident due to economic expansion. Furthermore, Trump’s administration is formed from the people who, as stated by Dr. Trenin, “are used to getting things done from a position of strength” (Krylov par. 16). Thus, on the global stage, Donald Trump has proved himself as the person of actions.
In conclusion, one should state that Donald Trump can be regarded as a modern phenomenon in US politics. Despite being a notorious personality, he is following a fundamentally original way in politics, focusing on the internal issues and America’s interests abroad. Trump’s presidential term may be ambivalent, but it will be esteemed as the time of potentially great changes for the United States of America.
Blair, Gwenda. Donald Trump. The Candidate. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2015.
Krylov, Alexander. “Donald Trump’s New Vision: Current Trends in Public Administration.” Journal of Governance and Politics, no. 1, 2017, sgpjournal.mgimo.ru/2017-1/donald-trumps-new-vision. Accessed 26 June 2019.
Saunders, Elizabeth N. “Is Trump a Normal Foreign-Policy President? What We Know After One Year.” Foreign Affairs, 18 January 2018, foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-01-18/trump-normal-foreign-policy-president. Accessed 26 June 2019.
Sherman, Jill. Donald Trump. Outspoken Personality and President. Lerner, 2017.
Intelligence Problem in the Trump Administration Case Study
Intelligence organizational problem is becoming a major concern in the United States, especially over the past few months that foreign powers have been accused of interfering with independent processes in the country. The Senate has the responsibility to come up with more effective laws that would ensure that the country remains protected from any foreign and domestic threats at all times. As the majority whip in the Senate, Senator John Cornyn has the responsibility of leading other senators in coming up with pieces of legislation that will help the new administration deal with some of the current challenges the country is facing. Currently, President Donald Trump is keen on signing executive orders that will help protect the United States. The following are some of the priority issues that need to be focused on by the senate and the new administration led by President Donald Trump.
Immigration and Border Security
The United States border security is one of the major issues that the political class is concerned with in the country. The increasing acts of terrorism have been blamed on the country’s porous borders and the less effective immigration laws (Trump, 2011). The Immigration department, according to Trump (2015), is not in full control of the people who enter the United States. The problem is that sometimes when the country opens its borders for refugees, there is the fear that extremists may find their way into the country with the sole intention is causing harm to the citizens of the United States or their property. The immigration department is struggling to contain the problem of illegal immigration and entry of contraband goods through our borders.
The new administration of President Donald Trump will need to come up with laws that will ensure that illegal immigration is effectively addressed in this country. The Senate should enact laws that would empower immigration and border patrol officers to deal efficiently with the problem of illegal immigration. According to Southerland and DeLuca (2015), one of the biggest challenges that the immigration and border patrol officers face when addressing the problem of illegal immigration is the existing laws that limit their ability to coordinate their activities and have a single central command. Through a new executive order, there can be a central command for border patrol officials, immigration officers, the Central Intelligence Agency Officers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, and other law enforcement agencies. Given that this is one of the tops of the issue in the agenda of Donald Trump’s administration, the proposed approach may help in limiting illegal immigration and insecurity caused by the porous borders of this country.
Foreign Affairs and National Security
The new administration has been criticized because of what many critics view as inadequate foreign policies (Shaffer, 2017). Traditional allies of the United States such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Mexico are no longer assured of close economic and military cooperation between the United States and their countries. There has been a growing concern that the new administration is not keen on maintaining some of the ties the previous regimes have worked hard to build. The approach that this administration is taking in handling issues such as Iran and North Korea’s nuclear threat may have a significant impact on the country’s national security.
As the Senate majority whip, Senator John Cornyn should work closely with other senators to enact laws that would protect the gains that have already been made by the previous regime in countering the threat posed by these hostile foreign nations. The foreign affairs department must be committed to protecting American citizens from the threat posed by foreign forces (D’Antonio, 2016). It will also be important for the Senate to ensure that the relations between the United States and Russia if improved by the current regime, do not compromise the United States sovereignty and security. The Senate must demand transparency whenever the executive makes an important agreement with the Russian government, especially because of the allegations that have been made that the current president was helped into the office by the Russian forces.
Healthcare Plans for U.S. Citizens
During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to overhaul the Obamacare through his executive order because he believed that it was not addressing the healthcare problems in the country. One of the initial executive orders that President Trump signed was to weaken the laws governing Obamacare. However, some critics believe that overhauling Obamacare may not be prudent if there is no proper healthcare plan to replace it immediately. The new administration will need a healthcare plan that can effectively address the shortcomings of Obamacare. As Stone (2017) puts it, Obamacare was an ambitious healthcare plan that was meant to help United States citizens, especially those with low income. It may not be the best healthcare plan that Americans can ever get, but it was a step towards assuring the citizens of a comprehensive healthcare cover. The new administration, working closely with the senate, can identify the shortcoming of this plan and come up with new policies that can address these challenges.
D’Antonio, M. (2016). The Truth about Trump. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Publishers.
Shaffer, A. (2017). The Day of the Donald: Trump Trumps America. New Delhi, India: Crooked Lane Books.
Southerland, B., & DeLuca, R. (2015). Donald Trump: A biography of the mogul turned presidential candidate. New York, NY: Cengage.
Stone, R. J. (2017). The making of the president 2016: How Donald Trump orchestrated a revolution. New York, NY: Cengage.
Trump, D. (2011). Time to get tough: Making America #1 again. Washington, D.C: Regnery Pub.
Trump, D. (2015). Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech Essay
The main purpose of rhetoric is to persuade the audience by presenting the most appealing and strong claims behind the case. For this reason, the presidential election speeches often incorporate a variety of rhetorical strategies to maximize the effectiveness of their impact on listeners. The following essay aims at analyzing Donald Trump’s immigration speech in an attempt to identify the presence of rhetorical elements and determine their purpose and likely impact on the audience.
The immigration speech was a part of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and mostly covered his suggested strategy to deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. As Trump himself stated at the beginning of the speech, the intended format was not a rally speech. Instead, his intent was to “deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country today” (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). However, it is important to note that the actual delivery was different from the stated format. The audience consisted mostly of his electorate and, judging from the reaction of the crowd observed in the video, the majority of the listeners were sympathetic with the content as they reacted positively to the delivery strategies chosen by the speaker. The purpose of the speech was consistent with the common goal of the election campaign speeches – that is, to persuade more listeners to vote for a particular candidate. To be more specific, it was intended to appeal to those who believe that immigration has detrimental effects on the country’s well-being and seek ways to decrease its level.
The speech, inconsistency with other public appearances by Trump, bears a distinct level of credibility often emphasized by him and used to persuade the listeners that he is qualified to speak authoritatively on the matter in question. Most often, the claims made by Trump are supported by his assertions of future success based on the fact that he was previously successful in his business endeavors, thus making use of ethos. While in his immigration speech, he did not explicitly make such claims, it is clear from the reaction of the audience that the assertions such as “Mexico will pay for the wall” are accepted without questioning and lauded (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). This suggests that the audience already holds the speaker in high regard and is familiar with his “credentials.”
The same can be said about the appeal to logos. While it is arguably present in the speech, it takes a distinct shape that does not fit the traditional definition of the strategy. For example, Trump often constructs his suggestions in a form that resembles the strategy backed by decent planning and supported with evidence, such as the intention to build the wall without using the American funds. Since this was a one-directional delivery, his assertion was not challenged by the critical analysis (which often occurs during debates and other forms of a dialog), but previous experience suggests that once it is put to the test, Trump backs it with vague yet emotionally charged claims which do not pose significant logical value. Therefore, logos is the weakest side of the speech, although this may not be apparent given its one-sided nature.
Trump’s utilization of pathos, on the other hand, is prominent throughout the entire speech and, again, displays the characteristic features common for his public presentations. First, he aligns his topics with the feelings of the audience – more specifically, the anger and discomfort with the current immigration rate. Most of the claims made by him either exaggerate or distort the actual picture of effects of immigration – but this matters little to the audience since it is aligned with how they perceive (rather than what conclusions they are able to make on) the topic. For once, his emphasis on zero-tolerance policy towards immigrants who commit crimes against residents of the US aligns well with the feelings of anger, strengthened by a xenophobic effect.
Dividing the group into camps is an inherent trait of human psychology and is often used in the field of politics. Trump is clearly aware of the effect since he uses the following definition: “Zero tolerance for criminal aliens” (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). The term “aliens” is a departure from the accepted politically correct norms but appeals to the bilateral attitudes of the audience. In addition, choosing the adjective “criminal,” which has a distinctively negative connotation, assigns a strong emotional meaning to the assertion, adding to the effect of dichotomy. This particular passage bears another distinct strategy often used by Trump – he repeats the word “zero” twice after the end of the sentence, and one more time after the applause dies down (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”).
This repetition of the key points of his assertions is prominent throughout the speech and has two effects on the listeners. First, it ensures that the idea is firmly embedded in the listeners’ minds, assuring both better comprehension and longer duration of the effect. Second, it builds up the emotional bond between the speaker and the audience. In fact, the use of the word “zero” is indicative of Trump’s usage of repetitions throughout his speeches, as he uses them only after his initial claim is met with approval. He then repeats it to escalate the praise, gives time for the ovation to die down, and makes a final repetition to instill the idea in the minds of already susceptible listeners.
Next, the topics chosen to be highlighted in the speech are the ones that have the biggest potential to trigger strong emotional reactions. For instance, he mentions the cases of Detective Michael Davis and Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver, two law enforcement officers killed by a previously deported illegal immigrant (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). The effect of the death of a fellow citizen who is also an officer is strengthened by personifying the victims. These names are already familiar to the people who follow Trump’s campaign since he mentions them often and even named legislation suggested to strengthen the control of immigration the Davis-Oliver bill (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”).
Again, he uses repetition of the keywords, which are the most appealing to the audience by describing the effect of the bill as allowing to identify and remove the immigrants to be removed “swiftly, really swiftly” (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). What’s even more interesting is his use of the false dichotomy to cater to the preconceived notions of the audience. Instead of describing the target audience of the bill simply as “immigrants,” he refers to them as “criminal immigrants and terrorists,” creating a line which separates the population into two categories. Simply put, he implicitly states that a person may be either an immigrant or not, and being one categorizes that person as a criminal and a terrorist.
To further personalize and flesh out the fears held by his intended audience, Trump invites several parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants. They are given an opportunity to tell their stories, some of which include shocking details such as the nature of wounds suffered by Grant Ronnebeck, shot in the face by the perpetrator (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). This further strengthens the bond with the crowd which usually eagerly sympathizes with the cases where individual loss and grief are prominent.
Finally, the speech, similar to all previous public appearances by Trump, is peculiar in its use of accessible and informal language. Most of the government representatives often ignore this important fact and saturate their messages with official terminology and specific terms intended to emphasize the credibility of the content. Trump does the opposite, which can be observed in his immigration speech. He avoids specific terminology and complex wording, formulating his ideas as clear as possible. Even more importantly, he adds a number of techniques which seem inappropriate for a political campaign, such as cheering the crowd by repeating “Are you ready?” before voicing the already highly anticipated plan to build the wall (“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech”). By doing this, Trump essentially fulfills the core premise of rhetoric – he speaks to his listeners using the figures of speech which are most familiar to them. In the case when he has an entire electorate as his ultimate audience (that is, the entire population of the country), he needs to sound more like a real person than a disconnected official, which he achieves via the described methods.
To conclude, Trump’s immigration speech displays strong reliance on pathos with limited and specific use of ethos and logos. The use of repetitions, manner of language, and acknowledgment of emotional state of the listeners further enhance the emotional connection and result in accessible content with appealing message which invokes strong emotional response in the audience.
“Transcript of Donald Trump’s Immigration Speech.” New York Times. 2016, Web.
Anti-Trump Protests for Third Night on CNN Essay
This article addresses “Anderson Cooper 360”, a news program that airs on Cable News Network (CNN). The news program first aired on November 11 but I watched it a few days later on CNN’s YouTube channel. The news segment is hosted by Anderson Cooper and it addresses the aftermath of the just concluded United States election where Republican candidate Donald Trump emerged as the winner. The news program consists of the host and six other panelists, who represent different points of views. In the segment, the panelists are discussing what is likely to happen after the election especially in regards to the rising incidences of anti-Trump protests that were going on across America.
The clip first addresses the President-elect’s statement on his earlier promise to reverse ObamaCare. The conversation then moves on to the element of anti-Trump protests and their validity. One panelist observes that the protests are uncalled for because the President-elect was chosen through democratic means. Another panelist answers this by claiming that the protests are not against democracy, but they are protesting against the character of Donald Trump. The host then poses the question whether, if the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton could have won the election, her supporters would tolerate protests. Finally, the clip concludes with another panelist noting that non-violent protests are accommodated by the laws.
The news segment on the aftermath of the US election coincides with various concepts in the textbook. First, the protests that are portrayed in the news segment juxtapose the concept of democracy and public opinion (Greenberg and Page 117). The public opinion that was expressed through voting where President-elect Donald Trump won the election in a transparent manner stands in stark contrast with the anti-Trump opinion that is being expressed in the protests. All the panelists of this show agree that the most important opinion is the one that is expressed through the ballot and not through street protests.
The same clip also indicates how political socialization can degenerate into fully formed beliefs (Greenberg and Page 121). The panelists note that Donald Trump’s socialization has created deeply held beliefs within the American public. For example, one panelist gives the example of a small boy who cried because he believed that the President-elect would act on his opinion that all illegal immigrants should be deported without consideration. In the segment, it is also clear that the media has been an important tool when it comes to instilling political beliefs among the general public (Greenberg and Page 122).
The book also points out that “political knowledge among the public is low, but cue givers allow people to make fairly rational decisions about their policy preferences” (Greenberg and Page 134). This would be a difficult concept to actualize through this news clip where the public is mostly agitated with results that they thought would favor their point of view. Further research indicates that the country might have erred in its measurements of public opinions. The book might refer to this scenario as indicative of the fact that there was no ‘rational public’ during the 2016 elections (Greenberg and Page 134).
The news segment illustrates a dilemma that has resulted from the outcomes of the last general election. From the results of the election, most people (including some of panelists in this news program) allude to the fact that democracy worked against the interest of the public. Although this matter has presented a quagmire even to seasoned political scientists, my view is that observers in the last election concentrated on the candidates rather than the public. Consequently, what was earlier assumed to be a ‘rational public’, turned out to be just as irrational as the election candidates were.
Greenberg, Edward, and Benjamin Page. Struggle for Democracy, 11th ed., New York, NY: Pearson, 2015. Print.
Donald Trump’s Political Role in the USA Essay
The modern world runs mad. The great tension in the international relations, numerous military conflicts, clashes of leading states, and financial crises contributed to the creation of the unique environment in which we leave nowadays. The modern news might astonish any person as there is even no sign of stability and numerous events attract peoples attention. The presidential elections in the USA could be considered one of the events of this sort. Being one of the super states involved in all recent international events, America still preserved certain stability within the country. However, Trumps almost unexpected victory and his odious personality triggers a great social response and splits the USA into two opposing camps which try to protect their position by all means and either preserve or reconsider the result of the elections. Although there is a significant part of the population which could not accept Trump as the would-be President of the USA, he should still take up this post because he remains the only legitimately elected head of the state.
Trumps lack of experience
Trumps opponents state that he will not be able to preserve the current course and lead a state because of the lack of any experience in politics and his controversial statements related to both international and domestic affairs. However, their claims are not supported by any significant evidence. During his pre-election campaign, Trump obviously made some sensational statements and evoked a great social response. Hence, one should understand the fact that these words could have been used to attract attention to his image and emphasize his dissimilarity from other candidates. These campaigns should be treated as a show with the main aim to make people follow a politician and monitor his/her actions. That is why Trumps previous words could hardly serve as the reason why he should not become the President of the USA.
Trumps pernicious impact on the US image
Furthermore, Clintons admirers are sure that the focus on the alteration of the current US foreign policy might have a pernicious impact on the states image and undermine its authority. At the moment, the USA mainly opposes to Russia and struggles to preserve its leading role in the world. Besides, the majority of problems faced by the modern world demand collective approach to their solution. Terrorism could be defeated only by the orchestrated efforts of the leading states. In other words, the time for the opposition has passed. If we want to eliminate this threat, the dialogue is vital. As the representative of another party, Trump might bring a fresh perspective that will contribute to the improvement of the current international situation and decrease the tension that exists in relations between the above-mentioned super states.
Trumps unique leading skills
Besides, Trumps unique leading and business skills are more important at the moment. Being a successful businessman who managed to earn millions of dollars, he perfectly realizes the most important peculiarities of the US and world economies. Obviously, this fact gives hope that the new President will be able to initiate significant alteration of the sphere of economy and introduce new regulations that will help to overcome the aftermaths of the world financial crisis and improve peoples state across the USA. As an economic man, Trump is first of all expected to devote more attention to this very sphere by sharing his own experience and aligning the efficient mechanisms that will contribute to the increase of peoples incomes. Moreover, in his numerous speeches Trump emphasizes the fact that he perfectly realizes the current situation in the USA and knows what actions should be performed to attain success.
Trumps legitimate status
Finally, Trump might have numerous positive and negative traits while his actions might also be controversial; however, these points could not deny the fact that he is elected by the majority of citizens of the USA and any attempts to reconsider the results of elections will contribute to the appearance of numerous civil commotions and strikes that might paralyze the country and turn it into another source of instability. At long last, Trumps actions will obviously be monitored by other branches of power and people will have an opportunity to show their attitude to them. However, at the moment he should be provided with an opportunity to take up this post and act as the President of the USA trying to improve its current state and get rid of the most nagging problems.
Altogether, it seems that the lack of stability peculiar to the modern world also affects the USA as there is the sign of growing dissatisfaction with the would be President. Being an odious person, Trump remains unacceptable for a number of people in the USA. However, he is the only legitimately elected head of the state. It means that the greater part of the population voted for him, and their choice should be respected. His rule will obviously be different, and the current states course could be changed; however, these alterations might be the key to the further evolution of the state and its becoming even more powerful, wealthy, and safe for all its citizens.
Trump’s Refugee Order: Suppression or Protection Essay
At the end of January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that entailed a huge controversy and is extensively discussed today. According to it, people from seven countries are prohibited from entering the territory of the USA on a temporary basis (Diamond). Politicians, professionals in the spheres of law, and international relationships, as well as the representatives of the general public, divided into two large groups considering this point because only some of them believe Trump’s decision to be the right thing to do. However, even though it does not follow humanist ideals and partially discriminates people on the basis of their religion and nationality, Trump’s order should be seen as an act of protection of the USA but not as a tool for suppression of other people, because it does not ban all Muslims but prevents terrorism and secures the country and its citizens. To prove this point of view, the paper will discuss arguments for and against the refugee order so that it can be concluded if such an initiative is worthy and appropriate in the framework of both legal and moral ideas.
The issue of admission of foreign visitors, refugees, and immigrants to the USA has been discussed for a long time already. Mainly, the government would claim that such an initiative allows the country to turn into the land of second chances for people who are deprived of the basic necessities in their native countries or are poorly treated. However, politicians and the representatives of the general public became more cautious after the 9/11 attacks, as they started to take into consideration the possibility of being hurt by people to whom they lend a helping hand. Donald Trump, being a presidential candidate, has already revealed his desire to implement “a ban on all Muslim immigrants and visitors entering the USA” (Burch 2094). He did not change his views since that time and underlined that such actions are maintained to make the country great again. Thus, it is not surprising that his order affects refugee admission, applying a ban to Syrian refugees and a 90-day visa suspension for people “arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen” (US & Canada). In addition to that, Trump reduced more than twice the limit for refugees that was set by Barack Obama. Of course, the possibility of exceptions was allowed.
The main reason for the controversy that developed due to the executive order deals with religious issues. Even though nationality and religious beliefs are generally claimed to be those biases that should not be taken into consideration when providing people with visas, Trump’s order definitely has such implications. He pointed out that those people who represent religious minorities will have more privileges when deciding whether to allow them to enter the USA or not. In addition to that, even though religion is not mentioned in the order specified, those countries that are mainly associated with Muslims are listed. Thus, this relation appears in human minds and entails thoughts about discrimination (PBS NewsHour).
However, the president claims that the issue does not reach this point. There are a lot of other countries where the majority of the population are Muslims, and their citizens are allowed to come to the USA (Graves). These seven countries were selected because of their connection with terrorism and the threat to the wellbeing of all Americans. Trump underlines that unlike many other politicians, he is willing to think of the security of his native country and only then consider some possibilities to help others. Such an approach tends to be reasonable because if the USA was destroyed by foreigners, it would not be able to assist anyone anymore. Some people believe that Muslims will not be accepted by the USA at all anymore, but until this happens, Trump’s temporary actions seem to be appropriate.
Controversy regarding refugees is also connected with the discussion of terrorism. The USA is a country that suffers from this issue greatly so that it is critical for it to pay attention to the security of its boards (Merica). Trump based his ideas on limiting refugees on the previous experiences of the USA. He revealed that those seven countries that face a ban are the most common locations from where terrorists come. For example, he refers to one of the recent attacks when there was “shooting in an Orlando nightclub by twenty-nine-year-old Omar Mateen, a U.S. citizen whose parents were Afghan immigrants” (Burch 2094).
However, people argue that prohibiting all representatives of the mentioned countries from entering the country, the president stigmatizes them as terrorists, which is inappropriate. Treating these populations in an indiscriminate way, Trump made the representatives of the general public indignant. Professionals in the sphere of law underline that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their nationality, and what Trump does has much in common with it. Still, the evidence proves that taking precautions regarding those nationalities that have already proven their connection to the majority of terrorist attacks within the country seems to be reasonable. Moreover, the fact that such initiative is not constant means presupposes that the prohibition can be canceled as soon as the USA reaches some stability in this framework and establishes appropriate regulations to ensure the safety of its population.
Finally, the USA is widely known as a country that supports others and helps them when needed. It provides humanitarian aid to many foreign destinations and assists in military actions. People got used to the fact that it is not focused on personal benefits and expect the USA to be helpful (Lind). Many people who are facing some issues in their motherland leave it for America because there is a lot of evidence that such practice turns out to be advantageous. Still, in the framework of security, it is not safe to accept everyone. Paying too much emphasis on refugees, the government tends to deprive the local population. Thus, Trump’s idea to strengthen the USA seems to be the right step. The country should find a balance and then reborn its humanitarian initiatives.
On the basis of the discussed information, it can be concluded that Trump’s refugee order is more about protection than suppression currently. The president is willing to ensure that those populations that have a lot of terrorists and want to lead the USA to ruin are under control and have limited or even no access to the country. Still, Trump should think of other initiatives that ensure security but are not discussed as tools of discrimination. He is likely to appeal to Americans if following such an approach in the nearest future.
Burch, Elias. “Testing Citizenship.” Boston University Law Review, vol. 96, no. 6, 2016, pp. 2093-2169.
Diamond, Jeremy. “Trump’s Latest Executive Order: Banning People from 7 Countries and More.” CNN Politics. 2017, edition. Web.
Graves, Allison. “Donald Trump Says Refugee Admissions Surged From 7 Countries During Suspension of Executive Order.” Politifact. 2017, Web.
Merica, Dan. “Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep out Radical Islamic Terrorists.” CNN Politics, 2017, Web.
Lind, Dara. “Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees Closes America to Those Who Need It Most.” Vox. 2017, Web.
PBS NewsHour. “The Legal Arguments for and against Trump’s Immigration Ban.” PBS. 2017, Web.
US & Canada. “Trump’s Executive Order: Who Does Travel Ban Affect?” BBC. 2017, Web.
Muslim Ban Enforced by Donald Trump Essay
Among the promises that President Donald Trump made during his presidential campaign was the pledge to protect the interests of the United States and to ensure public safety. He pledged to fight the Islamic State and other forms of extremism like Al-Qaida. After assuming office, the president signed an executive order that aroused outrage not only in the United States but also across the globe, particularly in the Muslim countries. The law barred people from seven Muslim nations from entering the United States. The president was clear that the executive order was not meant to ban Muslims. Instead, it intended to guarantee the security of the American citizens and to avert terror. Numerous media outlets, political analysts, and scholars have taken different positions regarding the executive order. Some find the order as a political and outright attempt to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.
An article by German Lopez of Vox Media refutes President Donald Trump’s claim that the executive order was meant to avert terror and guarantee security. The outrage that followed the signing of the executive order led to the president issuing a statement to defend his position. President Trump reiterated that even though the United States was willing to accommodate those fleeing oppression, it would not compromise the safety of its citizens. He said that the previous regimes used similar strategies to protect the country, citing the ban on visas for immigrants from Iraq by President Obama in 2011. President Trump claimed that had the executive order intended to ban Muslims; it would have affected all the nations with majority Muslims. However, Lopez states, “The executive order is an evolution of Trump’s actual Muslim ban proposal”. The president had promised to ban Muslims from entering the United States temporarily. Thus, even though the executive order does not affect a majority of the Muslims, it signifies the president’s intention to ban Muslims from the United States.
The Lopez cites evidence from President Trump’s close ally and adviser. Lopez claims that Rudy Guiliani (former New York Mayor) revealed that President Trump had sought his advice on how to use the right approach to prevent Muslims from entering the United States. The position of the article is that the president cannot justify his actions. Lopez argues that President Trump’s executive order cannot be compared with that issued by President Obama. In 2011, President Obama issued an order that affected only the refugees from Iraq. However, President Trump’s executive order impacts refugees, tourists, and other potential immigrants.
Lopez maintains that President Obama’s order did not bar refugees from entering the United States. Instead, it reduced the pace at which they were admitted into the country. Conversely, President Trump’s order has completely barred Muslims from coming to America. Hence, it amounts to banning Muslims. The author is biased in her analysis of the topic. The comparison that she makes between President Obama and Trump’s orders is not sufficient enough to claim that the latter’s move is equivalent to banning Muslims. The author presents the story with closure. As per Lopez, President Trump’s action is a voluntary ban on Muslims.
Tom Kertscher is a reporter with PolitiFact Wisconsin. Kertscher does not see the executive order as a move to ban Muslims. Instead, it is aimed at safeguarding the Americans and preempting a possible terrorist attack. The author explores numerous perspectives to support his argument. Kertscher claims that even though the ban targets seven countries whose majority of their population is Muslim, the nations have been found to harbor terrorists. Kertscher avers that one may be right to say that the order bans Muslims from the seven nations but not from the other 42 countries. The author defends his argument by looking at how the order impacts the fight against terrorism and Muslims.
The article supports President Trump’s executive order by referring to the 9/11 attack. The United States can guarantee safety only by barring people who do not value and uphold its constitution from entering the country. The fact that the order does not affect all the Muslim nations proves that it is not a ban on Muslims. The executive order is viewed as a ban on Muslims because it came after President Trump had expressed his intention to prevent Muslims from visiting the United States. The author is objective in his analysis of the story and does not rush to make a judgment. He refers to numerous reports, interviews, and studies. For instance, he refers to a CNN interview amid President Trump and host Cooper. He also refers to a report by Cato Institute.
In spite of Kertscher not mentioning that President Trump’s executive order discriminates against the affected nations, it is evident from the analysis he gives regarding other countries that pose a significant threat to the United States. The author argues that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt produce the highest number of terrorists who target the United States. However, the executive order does not target these countries. The report goes father to refer to studies conducted by the Cato Institute, which found that terrorists from the seven countries that the executive order bans have never staged a successful attack in the United States. In other words, the author insinuates that the order is not entirely meant to combat terrorism.
There might be other reasons that led to President Trump identifying the seven nations. The phrase “Does not” repeatedly appears in the story to signify that Kertscher believes that the president had no intention of banning Muslims from entering the United States. The detailed coverage of the story gives readers an opportunity to make a judgment without influence from the writer. The author leverages quotations and interviews in the story. They help to bring out the viewpoints of other stakeholders that the executive order affects in one way or another. The inclusion of past interviews involving President Trump gives the reader an opportunity to understand the factors that compelled him to sign the executive order.
Diamond and Almasy, CNN reporters, provide an account of President Trump’s signing of the executive order. The journalists report on the events that followed the signing of the executive order. They use words like “Shockwave” and “seismic” to signify the gravity of the matter. From the title that the reporters use, it is evident that the report is inclined towards the opposition of the president’s actions. They condemn the move by the president to sign executive order even without evaluating its merits. The reporters use film footage to cover the story. They show demonstrators converging in the main airports across the United States to oppose President Trump’s order. Diamond and Almasy compile a detailed report of events that followed the signing of the executive order. The report covers the reaction of the human rights organizations, Democrats, and advocacy groups (Diamond and Almasy par. 14). It includes the response from the Iranian government.
CNN is renowned for its impartial coverage of social and political events that happen not only in the United States but also across the globe. Therefore, the manner in which the reporters treat this story is in line with the reporting culture of CNN news. The inclusion of the opinions of the judges, advocacy groups, and human rights organizations in the report has influenced people’s impressions about the story. Even though the reporters appear to support the executive order, they have presented facts to show that the president was wrong in his actions. Thus, people are torn between supporting the president or people from the affected nations.
The collection of views from different parties makes the news legitimate. One would respond differently to the same report if it is presented in a different format. For instance, the broadcast of the story on the radio may lead to a person downplaying it as politics. However, when it is proclaimed with the backing of film footage, one understands the gravity of the matter and can make a sound judgment. Apart from referring to the views of judges and famous politicians, the story does not include information from other reports that cover the same topic. The reporters use commentaries sparingly. However, they rely heavily on quotations from President Trump and people who are against the executive order.
In conclusion, the Americans have divergent opinions regarding the recent executive order signed by President Trump. Some media personalities are biased in the coverage of the issue and believe that the move was meant to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Others are objective in their coverage and consider different perspectives of the matter. Understanding the events that led to the signing of the executive order may help to make objective conclusions. People should not condemn President Trump without understanding his intentions.
Diamond, Jeremy and Steve Almasy. “Trump’s Immigration Ban Sends Shockwaves.” CNN News, 2017, Web.
Kertscher, Tom. “Is Donald Trump’s Executive Order a ‘Muslim Ban’?” Politifact Wisconsin. 2017, Web.
Lopez, German. “Trump is Now Complaining that his Order is being Called a “Muslim Ban””. Vox Media, 2017, Web.
Brexit and Trump’s Election in Online News Media Essay
The “Arab Spring” brought to the world the new concept of internet-inspired political revolutions, which challenged, and in some cases, toppled formerly stable autocracies. The revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia not only sparked similar uprisings in the MENA region but also helped revolutionaries all over the world to realize how they could use the internet to reach their followers. Shervin Pishevar, the owner of the Social Gaming Network (SGN), even suggested the need to have an online platform through which freedom-seeking people could link up without the possibility of interference by their governments (Berrett et al. 2015). Also, President Obama’s re-election campaign made use of the internet to secure his second term at the White House. This new approach to campaigning led him to be termed as the first social media president. However, two recent events, namely, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as the US president, revealed the true power of internet-mediated collective action. This paper will critically evaluate how the internet shaped both events, resulting in outcomes that were not only unexpected but also shocking.
Social media swayed the outcome of Brexit, as many people were mobilized and motivated to vote for Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). The former British prime minister once stated that the internet had the power to ‘excite the attention of hundreds, thousands, millions of people and stirs them to action’ (Graham & Dutton 2014, p.197). These words were realized during the Brexit debate when the masses voted for leaving the EU, despite the elite class being in favor of staying. The mainstream media was for Britain to remain in the EU, citing potential economic harms of the exit. However, the leaders of the populist agenda such as Boris Johnson resorted to social media to spread their agenda. For months before the Brexit referendum, the ‘leave camp’ was engaged in establishing momentum online through various slogans that became popular over time. Through emotional appeal and a deep understanding of its target population, the ‘leave camp’ was able to secure victory against the London establishment.
Brexit portrayed the internet as a tool for political revolution by the masses that otherwise lack the resources to organize a traditional campaign. Although the ‘stay camp’ led by Prime Minister David Cameron used vast resources to advance its agenda, it failed in terms of reaching the people. This observation is a demonstration that the internet can bring together like-minded people without necessarily requiring huge resources. Indeed, all that is needed is an internet-enabled smartphone and a powerful online message. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter were used to reach the masses without the traditional expenses that are typical of political campaigns. Such cell phone-driven technology enabled the ‘leave camp’ to reach many undecided supporters who did not connect with the message being passed by the ‘stay camp’ via traditional media outlets. In the end, the side that understood and exploited the full revolutionary potential of the internet carried the day.
The ‘leave camp’ used internet-based tools to analyze accurately the available data about its target population. The situation where the data about internet users is available for manipulation is known as the ‘big data phenomenon’. With the help of internet tools, analysts can gather and manipulate data about a person or a group of people based on what they posted online via Facebook ‘likes’ and ‘retweets’ among others. Famous Swiss researcher, Michael Kosinski, believes that ‘big data’ paved the way for the Brexit, a view that has also been backed by Alexander James Ashburner Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica (Doward & Gibbs 2017). It is important to note that Cambridge Analytica is the company that designed both the ‘leave camp’ and Trump campaigns. Analysts tracked online debates by the people regarding how they felt about the UK being a member of the EU. Thus, it emerged that certain people were for the exit depending on their age or socioeconomic status. Armed with such information, the ‘leave’ campaign managed to design powerful and emotional slogans to reach this segment of the UK population.
Unlike traditional media, social media is readily accessible by most individuals, regardless of their age and socio-economic status. This reachability enables the voice of those who are otherwise regarded as unimportant to be heard. To illustrate this claim, polls by the UK mainstream media showed that Brexit’s ‘stay camp’ was leading by a 2 percent margin only two weeks to the referendum (Ahmad 2016). Similarly, in the US election campaign, Hillary Clinton led Trump by nearly 6 percent margin in the few days running up to the election. Despite the statistics, Nix insisted that the seemingly unfavorable sides were going to win. This claim turned out to be the case in the end. According to Doward and Gibbs (2017), campaign strategists who relied on the traditional methods failed to reach the grassroots. In other words, the stay movement and the Hillary campaign, respectively, failed to connect with the actual voters. Instead, they would collect data through sampling a few potential voters.
The 2016 US Election
In the US election, the internet brought together large numbers of people who were dissatisfied with the traditional media. In recent times, there have been allegations that political establishments use mainstream media to foster their agenda. Particularly, in the 2016 US election campaign, Donald Trump numerously accused the US media of favoring the Democratic Party candidate. Consequently, Trump’s campaign chose social media as a suitable way to reach its target. The target population viewed social media as the channel that could not be influenced by the all-powerful government to present biased information about the campaign. Every time the CNN and other established media houses published a poll showing how the candidates were faring in the elections, Trump would declare it false and biased. As a result, Trump’s followers became united in a boycott against the mainstream media while at the same time embracing social media. Thus, the ability of social media to bring together different people to a common cause was witnessed in the boycott against the mainstream media.
The internet is gradually undermining the position of traditional media as the most reliable source of information. This situation can as can be seen in the case of the United States’ mainstream media, which is continually being viewed as biased. As a result, people are beginning to trust information published on the internet at the expense of the counterfeit news from the mainstream media. This situation arises from the growing belief that powerful individuals and organizations that have no interest in the truth own and control the traditional media (Holt 2016). This observation may explain why the US president chooses Twitter to communicate to the nation, as opposed to holding press conferences. To illustrate this new trend, the term ‘alternative facts’ has emerged to denote information from platforms other than the mainstream media. This term was popularised by President Trump’s counselor, Kellyanne Conway, who sought to defend the White House spokesperson, despite him stating an outright falsehood about the number of people who attended the president’s inauguration. Thus, the internet is overtaking the mainstream media as the most trusted source of information, even though internet information is not always verified.
The new tendency of the population to believe what it sees or reads on the internet while at the same time ignoring the truth being propagated by the mainstream media demonstrates the uniting power of the internet. While threats may arise that information from the internet could be unverified or may even be plain falsehood, masses are becoming willing to act based on the ‘alternative facts.’ The 2016 US election involved the two main candidates accusing each other of being a liar. However, if used correctly and in good faith, the internet can assist in building strong networks such as online campaigns to raise funds to help in eradicating hunger in developing countries. Many celebrities have run successful online fund drives to raise finances to help the needy in society. Consequently, the collective action enabled by the internet should be viewed positively when it comes to solving the world’s problems.
The internet eliminates the traditional costs associated with carrying out political polls. Traditionally, pollsters have to traverse the entire country in search of potential voters to survey them. The survey must be carried out by identifying a small sample of potential voters to avoid excessive costs. The problem is that such a small population cannot be representative of the true feelings of an entire population (Holt 2016). Hence, the traditional polls on the Brexit and US election, respectively, failed to reflect the true scenario on the ground. Conversely, ‘big data’ analysts can obtain information about every potential voter in the country who uses the internet. Through various tools, the Trump and the ‘leave’ campaigns were able to analyze this data from all potential voters without incurring any costs or physical exhaustion. Consequently, they obtained the true picture of the situation, allowing them to reach their target voters with ease.
The internet enforces a sense of belonging to a group by an individual based on shared values or the perception of being oppressed. In the case of the ‘leave’ and the Trump campaigns, a large number of populations in the UK and the US, respectively, felt alienated by their governments. The numbers included unemployed white people who felt their jobs had been taken by immigrants. Unfortunately, the mainstream media could not express the true feelings of the people, as it would appear to be targeting immigrants and minority populations (Arnorsson & Zoega 2016). On the other hand, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow people to express their true feelings without the fear of being castigated. This situation may further be enhanced by the fact that the internet offers a level of anonymity that is not available when communicating in a real-life scenario. Because of this anonymity, different groups with extremist views such as the need to eject immigrants were able to come together to collectively push their agenda.
Supporters of the ‘leave’ and Trump campaigns believed the mainstream population and media unfairly targeted them to the extent of causing them to seek ways of becoming united. From the onset throughout the two campaigns, it was believed that the campaigns would lose the referendum and election, respectively. Instances were apparent when Trump supporters claimed they had been violated because of their political stand. Despite being rare, such instances served to bring together those who felt unfairly treated to support what they regarded as representing a better change for them. Therefore, the internet offered an appropriate channel to foster the union of the numerous fragments of like-minded voters. Similarly, the respective campaigns turned out to be emotionally driven seeking to present a certain segment of the population as neglected and often mistreated. The success of the two campaigns reveals the power of the internet to bring together people for collective action, despite physical constraints such as belonging to different states.
The Possibility of Misuse
True, the internet has enhanced the freedom of access to information by ensuring that the said information is not monopolized by the mainstream media. However, the danger of the same internet being utilized by people with ill motives to manipulate the masses is alive today. An illustration is an expression by many people that both the Brexit and the recently concluded US election were based on xenophobia and white supremacy (Ahmad 2016). While the mainstream media will deliberately avoid publishing political contents that are antagonizing in nature, the internet does not have such checks. The result is that any damaging information finds its way to the public. Further, dangerous agenda easily becomes the popular view, which may lead to dangerous trends. Thus, the collective action through the internet can result in widespread harm such as violence and the radicalization of a population.
While internet freedom is lauded as a way of empowering masses, governments need to find ways of curbing potential misuse. However, coming up with such measures could be termed as curtailing people’s freedom of expression. Nevertheless, society stands to benefit when people are more responsible for how they use their freedom. Politicians must not be allowed to use lies and abrasive messages to popularise vices such as xenophobia and racism.
The internet has become the basis of massive political and humanitarian campaigns in the world as evidenced by the Arab Spring, Brexit, and the two last US elections. It is viewed as the source of information that is otherwise unavailable via traditional media. Specifically, social media allows people of all ages and socio-economic status to connect and pursue a common front. Additionally, campaign strategists can collect and analyze ‘big data’ from the internet and use it to sway the masses. This data is available on internet sites that are frequented by people such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. If used appropriately, the data can be used to predict people’s political orientation with accuracy. The validity of the above claim was demonstrated in Brexit and the 2016 US campaign where the unlikely sides won, despite mainstream polls showing they were trailing behind their opponents.
Ahmad, K 2016, Brexit: causes and questions, Web.
Arnorsson, A & Zoega, G 2016, On the causes of Brexit, Web.
Berrett, D, Albee, M, Cirrincione, C, Kollenkark, S, Mcclanahan, J, Patten, M & Weare, C 2015, Proximity detection for shared computing experiences, Web.
Doward, J & Gibbs A 2017, Did Cambridge Analytica influence the Brexit vote and the US election? Web.
Graham, M & Dutton, W 2014, Society and the internet: how networks of information and communication are changing our lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Holt, K 2016, Media criticism and mistrust in Swedish anti-immigration alternative media, Web.