logo
Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good

Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good

The Advertiser11-05-2025

When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so
Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so

The Advertiser

time2 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so

"You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King. "You just [expletive] shot the reporter!" Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet. Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same "non-lethal" ammunition. The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as "a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States". He then deployed the National Guard. As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US. In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the severe beating of a Black man, Rodney King. Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people. During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, "Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?" Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He's classified them as "un-American" and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression. During last year's election campaign, he promised to "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country". Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump's "political enemies" as "echoing Hitler, Mussolini". In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about "sanctuary cities", such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been "invaded" by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true. It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as "disgracing our country", there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology. That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone. As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, "the cruelty is the point". The Trump administration's mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out. In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of 10 million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as "Waffen SS", called the protests "an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States". Trump himself also described protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs". Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation. The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act. Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California. This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump's longstanding attacks against independent media - what he describes as "fake news" - are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera. The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law. Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups - policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act. Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: "the bar is what I think it is". As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:" We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life." While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink. This article was updated on June 9, 2025 to correct information about Rodney King.

Bruce Springsteen snubbed autograph hunters for 'chasing him all around town'
Bruce Springsteen snubbed autograph hunters for 'chasing him all around town'

Perth Now

time2 hours ago

  • Perth Now

Bruce Springsteen snubbed autograph hunters for 'chasing him all around town'

Bruce Springsteen snubbed autograph hunters in Liverpool after they "chased" him through the city. The Dancing In The Dark rock legend - who recently played the second of two gigs at the north-west of England city's Anfield stadium - appeared angry as he was seen admonishing some people in the rain and refusing to sign any autographs. In a video which has been shared on X, Bruce said: "You guys chased me all around town! I'm signing nothing!" As he walks past them, someone out of view can be heard gasping in shock. Another person behind the camera responded: "Bruce, we love ya! We didn't, we've been here waiting for ya!" Bruce played his second gig in Liverpool on Saturday (07.06.25), and he'll be moving onto Berlin, Germany for a show at the Olympiastadion tomorrow (11.06.25) as his Land of Hope and Dreams tour keeps rolling. Last month, the 75-year-old rock star played three packed concerts at Manchester's Co-op Live arena. At one point during the first of the shows, he described Donald Trump's administration in the US as "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous". He told the audience: "In my home, the America I love, the America I've written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration. "Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring!' The rocker – who has been a staunch critic of Trump – made another attack on the White House chief and his political ideology as he introduced City of Ruin. He said: "There's some very weird, strange and dangerous s*** going on out there right now. In America they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now. "In America the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world's poorest children to sickness and death. This is happening now. "In my country they're taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers. They're rolling back historic civil rights legislation that has led to a more just and plural society." Trump responded with a lengthy rant via the social media platform Truth Social. Describing The Boss as "dumb as a rock", he wrote: "This dried out 'prune' of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that's just 'standard fare'. Then we'll all see how it goes for him! He added: 'Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he's not a talented guy - Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store