http://www.abajournal.com/gallery/turkey_pardons/1301
Why we pardon Thanksgiving turkeys
Origins of our modern Thanksgiving
Often we think our national traditions are older than they really are. For example, Thanksgiving. While it is true that the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag had a harvest feast at the Plymouth colony in 1621, Thanksgiving was not an annual occurence until much, much later. (And rivals for the “first” Thanksgiving held in America include celebrations by a 1541 Spanish expedition led by Francisco Vasquez de Coronado in the Texas panhandle; by French Huguenots near modern-day Jacksonville, Florida, in 1564; and by the Jamestown colony in 1610, according to the Library of Congress.)
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/thanksgiving/timeline/1541.html
Spanish explorer, Francisco Vasquez de Coronado, led 1,500 men in a thanksgiving celebration at the Palo Duro Canyon. Coronado's expedition traveled north from Mexico City in 1540 in search of gold. The group camped alongside the canyon, in the modern-day Texas Panhandle, for two weeks in the spring of 1541. The Texas Society Daughters of the American Colonists commemorated the event as the "first Thanksgiving" in 1959.
Why we pardon Thanksgiving turkeys
In the early years of the nation
Artist Jean Louis Gerome Ferris’ idea of what the first Thanksgiving would have looked like, painted sometime between 1900 and 1920.
Declaring a national day of thanksgiving used to be done to celebrate a specific joyful or somber event. In 1777, the Continental Congress proclaimed a national Thanksgiving after the U.S. victory over the British in the Battle of Saratoga in October.
In 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution went into effect, President George Washington declared that Nov. 26 would be a national day of thanksgiving, at the urging of the Congress. No turkeys were reported pardoned, but “President Washington later provided money, food, and beer to debtors spending the holiday in a New York City jail,” according to the Library of Congress.
Although President John Adams later followed suit by declaring other national thanksgivings, Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams declined to do so. President James Madison declared three days of national thanksgiving to mark the end of the War of 1812, but they were not held in November as we have become accustomed to; rather, they were Aug. 20, 1812, Sept. 9, 1813, and Jan. 12, 1815.
The 1815 celebration would be the last national thanksgiving for 48 years.
Why we pardon Thanksgiving turkeys
Mother of Thanksgiving
The woman we owe our modern Thanksgiving to is Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of the popular 19th century magazine Godey’s Lady’s Book (and author of the nursery rhyme “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”) In 1846, she decided that Thanksgiving should be revived and made into an annual national holiday. She spent the next 17 years writing to state and national government officials to plead her case. (Pictured on the right is one of her letters to President Abraham Lincoln, advocating for Thanksgiving.)
Finally, in 1863, President Lincoln acquiesced. From that year forward, the United States would often celebrate Thanksgiving on a Thursday in November, though the week of the holiday shifted and it was not a fixed national holiday.
Tad Lincoln, Turkey Savior
President Lincoln was not only the founder of the modern Thanksgiving; he was also the first to pardon a turkey, as this (inset) clip printed in the Hartford Courantin 1865 attests:
“Mr Gay, of the Old Market, sent two enormous Narragansett turkeys to the President last winter. When notified of the gift, Mr. Lincoln said he hoped they were not sent alive, or he never would get a dinner from either one of them; for at Thanksgiving someone sent him a live turkey for the occasion, and Tad entered such a vehement protest against wringing his neck, that the idea of eating him was abandoned. The little fellow declared that the turkey had as good a right to live as any body, and the pampered gobbler remained in the President’s grounds.”
The Smithsonian also credits Tad Lincoln (seen at left, with his father) as the savior of the Jack, the Thanksgiving turkey.
Fit for a president
Though Tad’s turkey Jack may have escaped his rightful place on the president’s sideboard, presidents after Lincoln felt no such compunction. Turkey farmers competed on who could present the president with the best-bred and most beautifully presented turkeys. This 1921 photo shows a turkey bound for President Warren G. Harding’s table.
Making Thanksgiving a permanent holiday
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the first to establish Thanksgiving Day as a permanent federal holiday, signing a congressional bill into law on Dec. 6, 1941 which said that henceforth, the fourth Thursday in November would be a legal holiday. The legislation was drafted after FDR’s decision in 1939 to declare the third Thursday in November as Thanksgiving to lengthen the Christmas shopping season. The public uproar was so great that it was decided the date of Thanksgiving needed to be set in perpetuity.
A somber Thanksgiving
President John F. Kennedy announced that he would not eat the turkey presented to him in 1963 by the California Turkey Advisory Board, and newspapers reported that the bird had been “pardoned,” according to the Smithsonian. Tragically, the president himself never made it to Thanksgiving that year; he was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, six days before the holiday.
According to the White House blog, starting with President Richard Nixon, the turkey annually presented by the National Turkey Federation would end its days in a petting zoo rather than on a platter.
The tradition is born
It was President George H.W. Bush who performed the first turkey pardoning ceremony in 1989. “He’s been granted a presidential pardon as of right now, allowing him to live out his days on a farm not far from here,” Bush told reporters at the event, the Smithsonian says. Bush continued to pardon a turkey every year he held office, and it became a national tradition carried out by each president following him.
The turkeys today
President Barack Obama will pardon his last turkey as President of the United States on Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2016. This video is from the 2015 ceremony, also attended by the First Daughters, Malia and Sasha. Turkeys “Honest” and “Abe” received reprieves from the dining table.
Letter from Attorneys Opposing Stephen Bannon's Appointment as White House Chief Strategist to the President
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/11Cs4a2NkGfv7k3ch7CqXzvUWzfg2sjZj5vbefS4oLPk/viewform?edit_requested=true
Letter from Attorneys Opposing Stephen Bannon's Appointment as White House Chief Strategist to the President
NOTE: TO SIGN THE LETTER, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, FILL IN THE FIELDS, AND HIT SUBMIT. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CLICK THE BUTTON IN THE UPPER RIGHT REQUESTING TO EDIT THE LETTER.
[The below letter will be circulated to current and incoming members of Congress. With appropriate modifications in phrasing it will also be sent to the President-elect and his transition team. Please contact Professor Nancy Leong, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, at nleong@law.du.edu with any questions. As of 5 PM ET on 11/20/16 there are over 14,000 signatories to the letter.]
Dear [Leaders]:
We are attorneys whose political views span the ideological spectrum. We write to ask that you call upon President-Elect Trump to rescind his appointment of Stephen Bannon as White House Chief Strategist.
As attorneys, we swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. We committed to protect the institutions upon which our democracy depends. We committed to provide zealous representation for all our clients, regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.
Mr. Bannon has demonstrated his opposition to the stable, democratic form of government that our profession embraces and strives to maintain. His words could not be more clear: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too . . . I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” This contempt for our longstanding governmental institutions has no place in a crucial leadership position.
Mr. Bannon has also enabled and promoted white supremacy. Under his leadership, Breitbart News has become what Mr. Bannon himself describes as "a platform for the alt-right" -- another term for white nationalism. Through Breitbart, Mr. Bannon has intentionally legitimized racism, anti-Semitism, and other hate-based ideologies. Such bigotry runs counter to the values enshrined in the Constitution we promised to defend. Indeed, it threatens democracy itself by undermining the equality of all citizens.
Of course we do not dispute that Mr. Bannon has the right to voice his opinions. Indeed, some of us have devoted our careers to safeguarding a robust First Amendment that protects individuals, the media, and other organizations. But these extreme and hateful views do not belong in the White House.
This is not a partisan issue. The white supremacy and political insurgency that Mr. Bannon has embraced and amplified contradicts everything we stand for as attorneys and as Americans.
President-Elect Trump has promised to be "a president for all Americans." The selection of Mr. Bannon as a key advisor communicates exactly the opposite. We call upon you to take all possible measures to ensure that Mr. Trump rescinds his appointment of Mr. Bannon.
[signatures]
Note: The signatories to this letter are speaking on their own behalf, not on the behalf of their employers or any other individual or organization.
Letter from Attorneys Opposing Stephen Bannon's Appointment as White House Chief Strategist to the President
NOTE: TO SIGN THE LETTER, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, FILL IN THE FIELDS, AND HIT SUBMIT. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CLICK THE BUTTON IN THE UPPER RIGHT REQUESTING TO EDIT THE LETTER.
[The below letter will be circulated to current and incoming members of Congress. With appropriate modifications in phrasing it will also be sent to the President-elect and his transition team. Please contact Professor Nancy Leong, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, at nleong@law.du.edu with any questions. As of 5 PM ET on 11/20/16 there are over 14,000 signatories to the letter.]
Dear [Leaders]:
We are attorneys whose political views span the ideological spectrum. We write to ask that you call upon President-Elect Trump to rescind his appointment of Stephen Bannon as White House Chief Strategist.
As attorneys, we swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. We committed to protect the institutions upon which our democracy depends. We committed to provide zealous representation for all our clients, regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.
Mr. Bannon has demonstrated his opposition to the stable, democratic form of government that our profession embraces and strives to maintain. His words could not be more clear: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too . . . I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” This contempt for our longstanding governmental institutions has no place in a crucial leadership position.
Mr. Bannon has also enabled and promoted white supremacy. Under his leadership, Breitbart News has become what Mr. Bannon himself describes as "a platform for the alt-right" -- another term for white nationalism. Through Breitbart, Mr. Bannon has intentionally legitimized racism, anti-Semitism, and other hate-based ideologies. Such bigotry runs counter to the values enshrined in the Constitution we promised to defend. Indeed, it threatens democracy itself by undermining the equality of all citizens.
Of course we do not dispute that Mr. Bannon has the right to voice his opinions. Indeed, some of us have devoted our careers to safeguarding a robust First Amendment that protects individuals, the media, and other organizations. But these extreme and hateful views do not belong in the White House.
This is not a partisan issue. The white supremacy and political insurgency that Mr. Bannon has embraced and amplified contradicts everything we stand for as attorneys and as Americans.
President-Elect Trump has promised to be "a president for all Americans." The selection of Mr. Bannon as a key advisor communicates exactly the opposite. We call upon you to take all possible measures to ensure that Mr. Trump rescinds his appointment of Mr. Bannon.
[signatures]
Note: The signatories to this letter are speaking on their own behalf, not on the behalf of their employers or any other individual or organization.
"박대통령님..." 홍정길 남서울은혜교회 원로목사 호소문 발표
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/11/22/2016112202198.html
"박대통령님..." 홍정길 남서울은혜교회 원로목사 호소문 발표
김한수 기자
2016.11.22 16:23
개신교 원로 홍정길(74) 목사가 최근의 시국과 관련한 호소문을 발표했다. 홍 목사는 고(故) 옥한흠·하용조 목사, 이동원(71) 지구촌교회 원로목사와 함께 ‘복음주의 4인방’으로 불리며 한국 개신교 합리적 보수를 대표하는 목회자다.
홍 목사는 청와대와 각 언론사에 보낸 호소문에서 “평생 공개적으로 정치적 발언을 한 기억이 없다” “수많은 고심 끝에 이 글을 쓰게 됐다”며 “국가를 위한 최선의 헌신(獻身)이자 새로운 대한민국 발전의 기초가 될 것으로 믿는다”며 박근혜 대통령의 하야(下野)를 권했다.
홍 목사는 숭실대 철학과와 총신대 신학대학원을 나와 한국대학생선교회(CCC) 총무로 일했다. 1975년 서울 서초구에 남서울교회를 개척했으며 1996년 서울 강남구 수서에 발달장애인을 위한 밀알학교를 설립하고 그 강당을 일요일에만 빌려서 예배를 드리는 남서울은혜교회를 세웠다. 현재 남서울은혜교회 원로목사와 북한 어린이를 지원하는 남북나눔운동 이사장, 밀알복지재단 이사장, 기독교윤리실천운동 이사장 등을 맡고 있다. /김한수 종교전문기자
아래는 홍정길 목사 호소문 전문이다.
박 대통령님, 하야가 최선입니다.
이 글을 올리는 저는 은퇴한 목사로서, 정치적인 견해를 공개적으로 말해본 기억조차 없는 순수한 전도자로 평생을 산 사람입니다. 그런 제가 오늘 이렇게 글을 쓰는 것은 대통령께서 물러나신 다음 야기될 몇 가지 큰 문제가 염려가 되셔서 하야하시지 못 하겠다는 생각이 있을 것으로 여겨져 감히 글을 쓰게 되었습니다.
첫째, 이번 일로 국가의 격이 무너지는 일이 생길 염려가 있을 수 있다 생각됩니다.
저는 한국교회가 북한의 굶주린 아이들을 돕고자 시작한 ‘남북나눔운동’의 이사장으로 대북 교류 관계를 23년 동안 해 왔습니다. 이 일을 하면서 처음 북한 사람들을 접촉할 적에 그들이 체제에 대한 논쟁들을 걸어올 때가 많았습니다. 단순히 한국교회의 심부름을 하는 제게 그 시비는 늘 걸림돌이 된다는 생각을 했습니다. 그러던 어느 날 북측의 한 분이 제게 이렇게 질문해 왔습니다.
“홍목사님, 남녘이 민주화, 민주화하는데 뭐가 민주화요?”
그때 저는 깊이 생각하지 않고 한마디 했습니다.
“국가 최고 책임자라 할지라도 잘못했으면 감옥 가는 것 입니다.”
그분은 그 얘기를 듣자마자 얼굴이 굳어지고 아무 말하지 않았습니다. 그리고 그 이후 20여 년간 남북 교류 활동을 하면서 아무도 체제에 대한 논쟁을 저에게 해오지 않았습니다. 사실 이 답변은 한 터키 사람이 제 마음에 준 깊은 확신에서 비롯되었습니다. 업무 차 한국에 온 그 분과 제가 함께 식사를 하는데 공교롭게도 식사장소에서 마침 노태우 前대통령께서 감옥으로 가시는 모습이 방영되었습니다. 식사 내내 실황중계가 되자 저는 자국민으로서 너무 부끄럽고 또 창피해서 ‘당신네들이 우리나라 민주화를 위해서 6.25 때 그렇게 많은 피를 흘렸는데 아직 한국이 이 모양이어서 부끄럽고, 그 귀한 터키인들의 피 값을 제대로 살리지 못 해서 죄송하다.’ 그랬더니 그분이 제게 매우 충격적인 말을 해주었습니다.
“ 저는 지금 이 상황이 눈물 나올 정도로 부럽습니다. 국가 최고 책임자가 잘못했다고 감옥 가는 나라가 세상에 어디 있습니까? 너무 부럽습니다.”
그때 제 머릿속에 우리 나라가 세계가 부러워하는 나라가 되었다는 생각이 들어 얼마나 놀랬는지 모릅니다. 사실 이런 반응은 터키뿐 아니라, 이 사실을 들은 중국, 러시아, 심지어 미국과 영국에서도 동일하게 있었습니다.
대통령님, 안심하고 하야하셔도 됩니다. 최고 책임자가 잘못했을 적에 동일하게 법적인 제재를 받는 나라, 그것이 자유민주주의 대한민국입니다.
둘째, 아버님께서 하신 그 모든 일들이 이제는 치욕으로 바뀌고 역사 속에 묻혀버릴 수 있다는 염려가 있을 수 있습니다. 그러나 염려하지 마십시오. 역사는 반드시 시간이 지나면 바른 평가를 내립니다.
저는 4.19 때 대학교에 입학을 했고, 곧이어 5.16이 되어서 학교는 휴교령을 맞아 최루탄과 곤봉으로 점철된 대학생활을 보냈습니다. ‘박정희’ 그 이름은 제 마음속에 깊은 증오의 대상의 이름이었습니다. 당시에 저는 CCC라는 기독교학생 단체에서 젊은 학생들에게 복음을 전하는 전도자로 살면서 김준곤 목사님을 스승으로 모셨습니다.
유신 때 저는 김준곤 목사님께서 박정희 대통령과 가까운 것을 보고서 한번은 너무 가슴이 아픈 나머지 목사님에게 대들었던 기억이 있습니다.
“ 목사님, 지금 학생들이 감옥에 가고 피투성이가 되어서 고통을 받고 있습니다. 어떻게 학생들을 핍박하는 대통령을 가까이하십니까? 이러다가 학생 전도 단체인 CCC의 전도길이 막힐지도 모릅니다..”
그러자 김목사님은 조용히 이런 말을 했습니다.
“ 그분이 여러 가지 상황으로 매우 어려워서 나를 불러 자기 마음속에 있는 이야기를 갖는 시간을 요청을 했네. 나는 목회자로서 한 영혼을 향한 배려 때문에 찾아 가겠다고 했네.”
“ 왜 일본에서 버리는 공해산업인 폐기물을 한국으로 받아들입니까? 이것이 이 민족 장래를 향해서 바른 일 아니지 않습니까? 산업폐기물은 받아들이지 않아야 되는 것 아닙니까?”
그때 김준곤 목사님께서 제게 이렇게 말씀하셨습니다.
“ 홍 군, 대통령께서 내게 이렇게 말씀하셨네. ‘그 공해는 내가 다 마실 테니 우리 백성이 배만 굶지 않으면 좋겠습니다.’ 그러면서 그의 두 눈에 눈물이 맺히더군.”
제가 그 말을 듣자마자 박정희 대통령에 대해 얼어붙었던 마음이 이해하는 마음으로 바뀌기 시작했습니다.
진실은 언제나 감춰지지 않습니다. 그러니 따님 되시는 대통령께서 직접 나서셔서 아버지 명예 회복을 위해서 표면적으로 노력하는 것은 별 의미가 없다고 생각합니다.
그리스의 가장 위대한 정치가였던 페리클레스(PERIKLES)는 페르시아와의 전쟁에서 승리하고 많은 국가적인 업적을 남겼습니다. 아마 그분보다 더 위대한 정치가는 그리스 역사에 기록되어 있지 않을 것입니다. 그런 그분이지만 당시 유명인이라면 의례적이던 자신의 동상 하나 없었습니다. 주변인들이 왜 동상을 세우지 않느냐는 말을 계속할 때마다 그의 대답은 딱 하나였습니다.
“ ‘왜 이따위 사람의 동상이 세워졌는가?’라는 말을 듣기보다, ‘왜 이런 귀한 분이 동상도 없는가?’ 나는 그 후자를 택하고 싶소.”
그렇습니다. 진정한 존경은 마음에서 나오는 것이지 광화문에다가 박정희 前대통령 동상 세운다고 일어나는 것이 아닙니다. 역사는 반드시 모든 업적 평가를 정확하게 해 줄 것입니다. 그러니 안심하고 하야하십시오.
셋째, 대국민 담화 때 이렇게 말씀하셨습니다. ‘이러려고 대통령이 됐는가?’
그 탄식을 소리를 들었습니다. 대통령 취임식 때 국가를 위해 진실한 마음의 선서를 하셨을 줄 압니다. 그런데 지금은 이렇습니다. 대통령께서 지라시라고 말씀하셨던 것이 모두 현실이 되었고, 비서실장께서는 실소를 금할 수 없는 소도 웃을 일을 행하셨습니다. 이제 이 국민은 대통령의 말을 신뢰하지 않습니다. 하지만 여기서 끝내시면 안 됩니다.
글을 맺으며 역사에서 실수와 잘못을 한꺼번에 해결했던 한 사람의 이야기를 들려 드리고자 합니다. 러시아 상트 페테르부르그 에 있는 에르미타주 미술관The State Hermitage Museum에 가면 렘브란트가 그린 ‘눈이 멀게 된 삼손’이라는 큰 그림이 있습니다. 그림의 주인공인 이 삼손은 이스라엘의 민족영웅이었습니다. 그랬던 그가 여인의 유혹에 넘어져 한 순간에 큰 범죄를 행했고, 그 일로 하나님께서 그에게 주셨던 엄청난 힘을 빼앗아 가셨습니다. 결국 삼손은 원수들에게 붙잡혀가서 눈을 뽑히고 감옥에 갇혀 연자멧돌을 짐승처럼 돌려야 하는 비참한 신세로 전락했습니다. 치욕의 삶을 살던 어느 날 블레셋의 축제일에 많은 사람들이 원형경기장에 모여서 가장 무서운 원수였던 삼손을 조롱하며 즐거워했습니다. 경기장 주춧돌 위에 세워진 큰 기둥의 쇠사슬에 묶인 삼손은 마지막으로 있는 힘을 다해 힘껏 밀었습니다. 그러자 그 큰 경기장은 무너졌고 왕을 비롯한 경기장 안에 있던 모든 사람들이 죽었습니다. 이것을 성경은 삼손이 평생 전쟁터에서 죽인 적군의 수보다 그 하루에 죽인 적군의 수가 더 많았더라고 기록하고 있습니다.
박대통령님, 하야하십시오!
이 나라를 농단하고 당신을 이용하여 사리사욕을 채운 모든 사악한 세력들과 함께 무너지십시오. 이것이 대통령께서 짧은 시간에 실수를 회복하실 수 있는 최선의 길이라고 믿습니다.
유라시아의 거대한 대륙의 끝자락인 이 작은 한반도가 열강들과 공산주의의 엄청난 위세 앞에서도 오늘날까지 자유 민주주의를 발전시킬 수 있었던 첫 단추는 바로 이 말이었다고 생각됩니다.
‘ 백성이 원하면 물러나야 한다.’
국민의 마음을 우선으로 한 마디의 말과 함께 초연이 경무대를 떠난 이승만 대통령의 하야가 있었다는 사실을 오늘에야 새삼스럽게 깨닫게 됩니다. 이 일로 ‘대한민국은 민주공화국이다.’라는 헌법 제 1조를 갖게 되었습니다.
박근혜 대통령님의 하야는 최선의 헌신이자 새로운 대한민국의 발전의 기초가 될 것을 믿습니다.
"박대통령님..." 홍정길 남서울은혜교회 원로목사 호소문 발표
김한수 기자
2016.11.22 16:23
개신교 원로 홍정길(74) 목사가 최근의 시국과 관련한 호소문을 발표했다. 홍 목사는 고(故) 옥한흠·하용조 목사, 이동원(71) 지구촌교회 원로목사와 함께 ‘복음주의 4인방’으로 불리며 한국 개신교 합리적 보수를 대표하는 목회자다.
홍 목사는 청와대와 각 언론사에 보낸 호소문에서 “평생 공개적으로 정치적 발언을 한 기억이 없다” “수많은 고심 끝에 이 글을 쓰게 됐다”며 “국가를 위한 최선의 헌신(獻身)이자 새로운 대한민국 발전의 기초가 될 것으로 믿는다”며 박근혜 대통령의 하야(下野)를 권했다.
홍 목사는 숭실대 철학과와 총신대 신학대학원을 나와 한국대학생선교회(CCC) 총무로 일했다. 1975년 서울 서초구에 남서울교회를 개척했으며 1996년 서울 강남구 수서에 발달장애인을 위한 밀알학교를 설립하고 그 강당을 일요일에만 빌려서 예배를 드리는 남서울은혜교회를 세웠다. 현재 남서울은혜교회 원로목사와 북한 어린이를 지원하는 남북나눔운동 이사장, 밀알복지재단 이사장, 기독교윤리실천운동 이사장 등을 맡고 있다. /김한수 종교전문기자
아래는 홍정길 목사 호소문 전문이다.
박 대통령님, 하야가 최선입니다.
이 글을 올리는 저는 은퇴한 목사로서, 정치적인 견해를 공개적으로 말해본 기억조차 없는 순수한 전도자로 평생을 산 사람입니다. 그런 제가 오늘 이렇게 글을 쓰는 것은 대통령께서 물러나신 다음 야기될 몇 가지 큰 문제가 염려가 되셔서 하야하시지 못 하겠다는 생각이 있을 것으로 여겨져 감히 글을 쓰게 되었습니다.
첫째, 이번 일로 국가의 격이 무너지는 일이 생길 염려가 있을 수 있다 생각됩니다.
저는 한국교회가 북한의 굶주린 아이들을 돕고자 시작한 ‘남북나눔운동’의 이사장으로 대북 교류 관계를 23년 동안 해 왔습니다. 이 일을 하면서 처음 북한 사람들을 접촉할 적에 그들이 체제에 대한 논쟁들을 걸어올 때가 많았습니다. 단순히 한국교회의 심부름을 하는 제게 그 시비는 늘 걸림돌이 된다는 생각을 했습니다. 그러던 어느 날 북측의 한 분이 제게 이렇게 질문해 왔습니다.
“홍목사님, 남녘이 민주화, 민주화하는데 뭐가 민주화요?”
그때 저는 깊이 생각하지 않고 한마디 했습니다.
“국가 최고 책임자라 할지라도 잘못했으면 감옥 가는 것 입니다.”
그분은 그 얘기를 듣자마자 얼굴이 굳어지고 아무 말하지 않았습니다. 그리고 그 이후 20여 년간 남북 교류 활동을 하면서 아무도 체제에 대한 논쟁을 저에게 해오지 않았습니다. 사실 이 답변은 한 터키 사람이 제 마음에 준 깊은 확신에서 비롯되었습니다. 업무 차 한국에 온 그 분과 제가 함께 식사를 하는데 공교롭게도 식사장소에서 마침 노태우 前대통령께서 감옥으로 가시는 모습이 방영되었습니다. 식사 내내 실황중계가 되자 저는 자국민으로서 너무 부끄럽고 또 창피해서 ‘당신네들이 우리나라 민주화를 위해서 6.25 때 그렇게 많은 피를 흘렸는데 아직 한국이 이 모양이어서 부끄럽고, 그 귀한 터키인들의 피 값을 제대로 살리지 못 해서 죄송하다.’ 그랬더니 그분이 제게 매우 충격적인 말을 해주었습니다.
“ 저는 지금 이 상황이 눈물 나올 정도로 부럽습니다. 국가 최고 책임자가 잘못했다고 감옥 가는 나라가 세상에 어디 있습니까? 너무 부럽습니다.”
그때 제 머릿속에 우리 나라가 세계가 부러워하는 나라가 되었다는 생각이 들어 얼마나 놀랬는지 모릅니다. 사실 이런 반응은 터키뿐 아니라, 이 사실을 들은 중국, 러시아, 심지어 미국과 영국에서도 동일하게 있었습니다.
대통령님, 안심하고 하야하셔도 됩니다. 최고 책임자가 잘못했을 적에 동일하게 법적인 제재를 받는 나라, 그것이 자유민주주의 대한민국입니다.
둘째, 아버님께서 하신 그 모든 일들이 이제는 치욕으로 바뀌고 역사 속에 묻혀버릴 수 있다는 염려가 있을 수 있습니다. 그러나 염려하지 마십시오. 역사는 반드시 시간이 지나면 바른 평가를 내립니다.
저는 4.19 때 대학교에 입학을 했고, 곧이어 5.16이 되어서 학교는 휴교령을 맞아 최루탄과 곤봉으로 점철된 대학생활을 보냈습니다. ‘박정희’ 그 이름은 제 마음속에 깊은 증오의 대상의 이름이었습니다. 당시에 저는 CCC라는 기독교학생 단체에서 젊은 학생들에게 복음을 전하는 전도자로 살면서 김준곤 목사님을 스승으로 모셨습니다.
유신 때 저는 김준곤 목사님께서 박정희 대통령과 가까운 것을 보고서 한번은 너무 가슴이 아픈 나머지 목사님에게 대들었던 기억이 있습니다.
“ 목사님, 지금 학생들이 감옥에 가고 피투성이가 되어서 고통을 받고 있습니다. 어떻게 학생들을 핍박하는 대통령을 가까이하십니까? 이러다가 학생 전도 단체인 CCC의 전도길이 막힐지도 모릅니다..”
그러자 김목사님은 조용히 이런 말을 했습니다.
“ 그분이 여러 가지 상황으로 매우 어려워서 나를 불러 자기 마음속에 있는 이야기를 갖는 시간을 요청을 했네. 나는 목회자로서 한 영혼을 향한 배려 때문에 찾아 가겠다고 했네.”
“ 왜 일본에서 버리는 공해산업인 폐기물을 한국으로 받아들입니까? 이것이 이 민족 장래를 향해서 바른 일 아니지 않습니까? 산업폐기물은 받아들이지 않아야 되는 것 아닙니까?”
그때 김준곤 목사님께서 제게 이렇게 말씀하셨습니다.
“ 홍 군, 대통령께서 내게 이렇게 말씀하셨네. ‘그 공해는 내가 다 마실 테니 우리 백성이 배만 굶지 않으면 좋겠습니다.’ 그러면서 그의 두 눈에 눈물이 맺히더군.”
제가 그 말을 듣자마자 박정희 대통령에 대해 얼어붙었던 마음이 이해하는 마음으로 바뀌기 시작했습니다.
진실은 언제나 감춰지지 않습니다. 그러니 따님 되시는 대통령께서 직접 나서셔서 아버지 명예 회복을 위해서 표면적으로 노력하는 것은 별 의미가 없다고 생각합니다.
그리스의 가장 위대한 정치가였던 페리클레스(PERIKLES)는 페르시아와의 전쟁에서 승리하고 많은 국가적인 업적을 남겼습니다. 아마 그분보다 더 위대한 정치가는 그리스 역사에 기록되어 있지 않을 것입니다. 그런 그분이지만 당시 유명인이라면 의례적이던 자신의 동상 하나 없었습니다. 주변인들이 왜 동상을 세우지 않느냐는 말을 계속할 때마다 그의 대답은 딱 하나였습니다.
“ ‘왜 이따위 사람의 동상이 세워졌는가?’라는 말을 듣기보다, ‘왜 이런 귀한 분이 동상도 없는가?’ 나는 그 후자를 택하고 싶소.”
그렇습니다. 진정한 존경은 마음에서 나오는 것이지 광화문에다가 박정희 前대통령 동상 세운다고 일어나는 것이 아닙니다. 역사는 반드시 모든 업적 평가를 정확하게 해 줄 것입니다. 그러니 안심하고 하야하십시오.
셋째, 대국민 담화 때 이렇게 말씀하셨습니다. ‘이러려고 대통령이 됐는가?’
그 탄식을 소리를 들었습니다. 대통령 취임식 때 국가를 위해 진실한 마음의 선서를 하셨을 줄 압니다. 그런데 지금은 이렇습니다. 대통령께서 지라시라고 말씀하셨던 것이 모두 현실이 되었고, 비서실장께서는 실소를 금할 수 없는 소도 웃을 일을 행하셨습니다. 이제 이 국민은 대통령의 말을 신뢰하지 않습니다. 하지만 여기서 끝내시면 안 됩니다.
글을 맺으며 역사에서 실수와 잘못을 한꺼번에 해결했던 한 사람의 이야기를 들려 드리고자 합니다. 러시아 상트 페테르부르그 에 있는 에르미타주 미술관The State Hermitage Museum에 가면 렘브란트가 그린 ‘눈이 멀게 된 삼손’이라는 큰 그림이 있습니다. 그림의 주인공인 이 삼손은 이스라엘의 민족영웅이었습니다. 그랬던 그가 여인의 유혹에 넘어져 한 순간에 큰 범죄를 행했고, 그 일로 하나님께서 그에게 주셨던 엄청난 힘을 빼앗아 가셨습니다. 결국 삼손은 원수들에게 붙잡혀가서 눈을 뽑히고 감옥에 갇혀 연자멧돌을 짐승처럼 돌려야 하는 비참한 신세로 전락했습니다. 치욕의 삶을 살던 어느 날 블레셋의 축제일에 많은 사람들이 원형경기장에 모여서 가장 무서운 원수였던 삼손을 조롱하며 즐거워했습니다. 경기장 주춧돌 위에 세워진 큰 기둥의 쇠사슬에 묶인 삼손은 마지막으로 있는 힘을 다해 힘껏 밀었습니다. 그러자 그 큰 경기장은 무너졌고 왕을 비롯한 경기장 안에 있던 모든 사람들이 죽었습니다. 이것을 성경은 삼손이 평생 전쟁터에서 죽인 적군의 수보다 그 하루에 죽인 적군의 수가 더 많았더라고 기록하고 있습니다.
박대통령님, 하야하십시오!
이 나라를 농단하고 당신을 이용하여 사리사욕을 채운 모든 사악한 세력들과 함께 무너지십시오. 이것이 대통령께서 짧은 시간에 실수를 회복하실 수 있는 최선의 길이라고 믿습니다.
유라시아의 거대한 대륙의 끝자락인 이 작은 한반도가 열강들과 공산주의의 엄청난 위세 앞에서도 오늘날까지 자유 민주주의를 발전시킬 수 있었던 첫 단추는 바로 이 말이었다고 생각됩니다.
‘ 백성이 원하면 물러나야 한다.’
국민의 마음을 우선으로 한 마디의 말과 함께 초연이 경무대를 떠난 이승만 대통령의 하야가 있었다는 사실을 오늘에야 새삼스럽게 깨닫게 됩니다. 이 일로 ‘대한민국은 민주공화국이다.’라는 헌법 제 1조를 갖게 되었습니다.
박근혜 대통령님의 하야는 최선의 헌신이자 새로운 대한민국의 발전의 기초가 될 것을 믿습니다.
The Bitter Feud Behind the Law That Could Keep Jared Kushner Out of the White House
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/1976-nepotism-law-lyndon-johnson-bobby-kennedy-trump-kushner-214465
The Bitter Feud Behind the Law That Could Keep Jared Kushner Out of the White House
By JOSH ZEITZ
November 17, 2016
"Don’t smile too much or they’ll think we’re happy about the appointment,” Senator John F. Kennedy told his younger brother, Robert. It was late 1960. Jack Kennedy, now president-elect of the United States, opened the front door of his stately home in Georgetown to inform a pack of awaiting reporters that he would name Bobby to the post of attorney general.
It was the worst-kept secret in Washington, and as the family expected, few seasoned political hands approved of the selection. “It is simply not good enough to name a bright young political manager, no matter how bright or how young or how personally loyal, to a major post in government,” the New York Times editorialized. Worse, a close associate later observed, “it was nepotism, I mean, he was the brother of the president.” Anthony Lewis, a veteran courts reporter, was “appalled … thought it was a simply awful idea.” Kennedy was “a zealot with no understanding of the terrible responsibilities of an attorney general.”
Bobby Kennedy has since become an American folk hero—the tough, crusading liberal gunned down in the prime of life. But his appointment at the age of 35 to a powerful government post—a post that he was singularly unqualified to hold—at the time struck many in Washington as irresponsible and inappropriate.
More than that, it rankled one very important person in particular—Lyndon Johnson, who loathed RFK intensely and must certainly have borne that hatred in mind when, in 1967, he signed into law a nepotism statute that, among other provisions, appeared to make it impossible for a president to appoint immediate family members to the Cabinet or, some argue, to the White House staff. (The law explicitly prevents “public officials” from promoting a “relative” "to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control.”) LBJ knew that the law would have no immediate bearing on the Kennedy family. But as one aide later noted, he “couldn’t be rational where Bobby”—whom he dubbed “that little shitass”—“was concerned.” Signing the bill must have felt good.
Almost 50 years later, it’s that law—LBJ’s sweet revenge—that could prevent President-elect Donald Trump from bringing his son-in-law and chief whisperer, Jared Kushner, to Washington as an adviser—a possibility that Trump denies, despite the flurry of leaks emanating from his unorthodox transition headquarters in Trump Tower. (Trump may still be able to grant security clearance to Kushner and rely on him as an outside adviser. But he can’t place him in the Cabinet or even, some claim, on the White House staff.)
Even if LBJ signed the law out of personal animus, there’s a reason that Congress passed it by a comfortable margin. And it’s a reason worth remembering today. Presidents enjoy enough power and access to talent without needing to resort to nepotism—and as we can see from RFK’s appointment, all family members—though personally loyal to the president—are not necessarily fit to hold high office.
Shortly after naming his brother attorney general, Jack Kennedy told family friends, in jest, that he “just wanted to give him a little legal practice before he becomes a lawyer.”
Bobby was mortified. “Jack,” he complained “you shouldn’t have said that about me.”
“Bobby, you don’t understand,” JFK explained. “You’ve got to make fun of it, you’ve got to make fun of yourself in politics.”
“You weren’t making fun of yourself,” Bobby parried. “You were making fun of me.”
It stung because it was true. At age 35, RFK had just a few years of government service under his belt; he had worked as legal counsel to two Senate committees—jobs that his father and brother had arranged for him—but otherwise claimed no qualification for the role of attorney general.
But JFK had grown to rely on Bobby—the brother who, years earlier, he had dismissed as “kind of a nasty, brutal, humorless little fellow,” “moody, taciturn, brusque, and combative”—as his campaign manager, right hand and principal sounding board. “I have now watched you Kennedy brothers for five solid years,” Connecticut Governor Abraham Ribicoff told the president-elect, “and I notice that every time you face a new crisis, you automatically turn to Bobby. You’re out of the same womb. There’s empathy. You understand one another. You’re not going to be able to be president without using Bobby all the time.”
Not everyone looked warmly on Bobby’s appointment, particularly Vice President-elect Johnson, who privately reviled him as a “snot-nosed little son of -bitch.” Their mutual enmity—almost Shakespearean in its richness and depth—would drive power dynamics in Washington for the next decade and beyond. During his tenure as Senate majority leader, LBJ had sized up RFK (who was then a lowly committee aide) as a “snot nose,” though he acknowledged that he was “bright.” Ever eager to diminish others to aggrandize himself, he would greet Bobby in the hallways as “sonny boy.”
It’s hard to pinpoint the moment when the two men developed their all-consuming hatred for each other. It might have been in late 1959, when Jack dispatched his brother to the LBJ Ranch in Texas to determine whether Johnson intended to run for the Democratic presidential nomination the net year. In a deliberate attempt to humiliate JFK’s little brother, Johnson took him deer hunting and purposely handed him a high-caliber rifle with an especially powerful recoil. It knocked Kennedy to the ground. “Son,” Johnson said, “you’ve got to learn to handle a gun like a man.”
Or, it might have been several months later, when LBJ’s campaign spread (true) rumors that Jack Kennedy was concealing a serious illness and reminded liberal delegates to the Democratic National Convention that the candidate’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy, had opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s war preparedness policies in the late 1930s. “Lyndon Johnson has compared my father to the Nazis and … lied by saying my brother was dying of Addison’s disease,” Bobby complained to one of Johnson’s close aides. “You Johnson people are running a stinking damned campaign and you’ll get yours when the time comes.”
The time came soon enough. After JFK secured the nomination, Jack offered LBJ the vice presidential slot. Johnson accepted it, and then Bobby—apparently on his own authority, or because of a miscommunication—attempted to rescind it. The story leaked widely and caused Johnson considerable embarrassment, for which he never forgave RFK.
As vice president, Johnson stoically and without public complaint weathered almost three years of endless humiliation at the hand of Bobby Kennedy. Though JFK insisted that his staff members accord LBJ all of the consideration and courtesy due to the vice president, Bobby and his loyalists were uniformly dismissive and impolite. They frequently disregarded instructions that LBJ be included in key policy and security conclaves. At Cabinet and interagency meetings, Bobby took every opportunity to humiliate the vice president.
Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson were rarely granted invitations to parties at Hickory Hill, Bobby’s estate in Northern Virginia and the unofficial social capital of Camelot. On those few occasions when they were included, Ethel Kennedy relegated them to her “loser’s table,” a repository for random guests of little social or political import. Hugh Sidey, a leading journalist, recalled the Johnson’s treatment at Hickory Hill as “just awful … inexcusable, really.” At one party, staff aides presented Bobby with a cloth effigy of Johnson, with pins sticking out of it. Then as now, Washington was a small town. The story got around.
Richard Goodwin, a Kennedy aide who later served as chief speechwriter in Johnson’s White House, observed that “Bobby symbolized everything Johnson hated. He became the symbol of all the things Johnson wasn’t … with these characteristics of wealth and power and ease and Eastern elegance; with Johnson always looking at himself as the guy they thought was illiterate, rude, crude. They laughed at him behind his back. I think he felt all of that.”
Johnson miserably accepted that such disgrace would be his lot in life for eight years—unless the Kennedys dumped him from the ticket in 1964, a fear that haunted him nightly. It was an open secret that Bobby coveted the 1968 nomination for himself. He was, according to all the news magazines, the “No. 2” man in Washington. “When this fellow looks at me,” said the actual No. 2 man during his tenure as vice president, “he looks at me like he’s going to look a hole right through me, like I’m a spy or something.”
In a particular moment of weakness, the vice president cornered Bobby inside the White House residence and pleaded, “I don’t understand you, Bobby. Your father likes me. Your brother likes me. But you don’t like me.Now, why? Why don’t you like me?” According to a bystander, RFK “agreed to the accuracy of all this.” It was the ultimate turn of the knife.
When, on November 22, 1963, fate reversed their fortunes, Johnson tried at first and of necessity to be gracious to the man who was now hisattorney general. He had to serve out John Kennedy’s remaining 13 months in office before he could lay claim to his own mandate. But the relationship, already bad, grew poisonous from the start. Bobby deeply resented that LBJ insisted on flying back from Dallas on Air Force One, rather than on the vice presidential plane, and he believed—though he was not entirely right—that LBJ had treated Jackie Kennedy shabbily that day. At Cabinet meetings, he would show up late and openly brood, or stare with undisguised aggression at the sight of the new president sitting in his brother’s chair.
“Our president was a gentleman and a human being,” Bobby told an interviewer in confidence, even while he still served in Johnson’s Cabinet. “This man is not. … He’s mean, bitter, vicious—an animal in many ways.”
Despite his hatred of Johnson, Bobby was eager to reclaim the Kennedy family’s power base and made overtures for the vice presidential spot in 1964. When LBJ turned him down, Bobby resigned his post and ran for the Senate in New York. It proved a tougher race than anyone expected. In the closing days, RFK had to swallow his pride and ask the president—who was then riding high and on his way to a landslide victory against GOP nominee Barry Goldwater—to campaign with him in the Empire State. LBJ agreed. The photographs show a very glum Senate candidate hating every minute of their joint appearance.
In the coming years, even at the height of his power, LBJ feared that his one-time tormenter would tack to the left and challenge him for the presidency in 1968. He worried that the Kennedys might seek to launch a dynasty that lasted into the 1970s and beyond: first Jack, then Bobby, then younger brother Teddy. Goodwin thought that the president was “always afraid of Bobby. It was more than hatred. It was fear.”
In 1967, LBJ signed the law that would bar future presidents from naming their brother to the Cabinet. The anti-nepotism law was a rider to a bill that established salary rates for postal workers and other government employees. The Iowa congressman who introduced the nepotism provision later claimed that it was not inspired with RFK in mind, and indeed, it covered broader categories of public employees. But it was widely assumed at the time and now by historians that Johnson requested the rider, and it soon acquired the popular moniker, “the RFK bill.” Johnson’s morbid obsession with the Kennedys was so all-encompassing that it’s not hard to believe that he was motivated in part by a desire to stop their dynastic trajectory in its tracks.
However personal his motivations, LBJ had other reasons to be wary of RFK’s appointment. Historians are divided as to whether Robert Kennedy was a strong attorney general or presidential counselor. During his tenure the Department of Justice undertook vigorous prosecution of organized crime and launched a small, but inventive pilot initiative to combat juvenile delinquency—an initiative that later influenced components of LBJ’s War on Poverty.
But on the central issue of his time—civil rights—he was at best a temporizer.
When in 1961, Freedom Riders tested a ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission that barred segregation in bus terminals serving interstate routes, RFK at first tried to persuade civil rights leaders to abandon their campaign. When white civilians and law enforcement officials in Alabama massacred two busloads of riders (and burned one of the buses), the Justice Department quietly cut a deal whereby a new contingent of activists was escorted to the state line unharmed, and then placed under arrest for violating Mississippi’s segregation ordinances.
Though in later years, as a senator, Bobby proved a stalwart supporter of civil rights, as attorney general he allowed Southern authorities to flout federal authority and often expressed as much frustration with demonstrators as with white officials in the South. He did so out of political expediency (RFK was loath to lose the Solid South in 1964); a commitment to federalism (he believed that the constitution limited his scope of action); and moral failure (civil rights was simply not an issue that he’d had to confront in his 35 years).
A hard-line anti-Communist, Bobby also authorized FBI wiretaps against Martin Luther King Jr. He did so on the advice of J. Edgar Hoover, who claimed that MLK associated with communist organizers. Though the Kennedys harbored no illusions about Hoover’s personal and political motives, RFK armed him with the ability to surveil and later blackmail a Nobel Prize laureate. It was not a proud moment in the history of the FBI or the Justice Department.
Jared Kushner is approximately the same age that Bobby Kennedy was in 1960. He brings less government experience, not more, to the table.
But it’s not just a matter of experience. It’s a matter of propriety. When JFK first appointed his brother, the New York Times remarked that Bobby was a “political manager”—the Justice Department, it argued, “ought to be kept completely out of the political realm.” Just as it was wrong to install a political operative in the attorney general’s seat, it’s wrong to invite the president’s son-in-law into the West Wing, in whatever capacity. He and his wife cannot be disinterested stewards of the president-elect’s business empire—and their own—while enjoying sway over government officials and agencies and receiving classified information that could inform their commercial activities.
Donald Trump enters the White House with a very thin mandate. If his victory in the Electoral College tells us anything, it’s that many Americans are tired of living in a system that they regard as “rigged,” in which elite families subsume an outsized share of power and profit. If it was true of the Kennedys in 1960, or of the Bushes and Clintons in 2016, it must surely be true of the Trumps in 2017.
Josh Zeitz has taught American history and politics at Cambridge University and Princeton University and is the author of Lincoln’s Boys: John Hay, John Nicolay, and the War for Lincoln's Image. He is currently writing a book on the making of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Follow him @joshuamzeitz.
Jon Stewart: “I don’t believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago,”
Jon Stewart slams liberal ‘hypocrisy’ for branding Trump voters racist
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/17/jon-stewart-slams-liberal-hypocrisy-for-branding-d/
By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 17, 2016
Former talk show host Jon Stewart slammed the “hypocrisy” of the left for supposedly rejecting stereotypes while painting Donald Trump voters as racist.
Mr. Stewart, former host of “The Daily Show,” sat down with CBS’ Charlie Rose in an interview aired Thursday to discuss his new book, “An Oral History” and weigh in on Donald Trump’s stunning Election Day victory.
“I thought Donald Trump disqualified himself at numerous points,” Mr. Stewart said. “But there is now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric.
“Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums,” he continued. “In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look as Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”
Mr. Stewart said Mr. Trump’s win was a not only a reaction to Democratic leadership, but to the Republican establishment.
“He’s not a Republican, he is a repudiation of Republicans,” he said. “But they will reap the benefit of his victory, in all of their cynicism and all of their — I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government.”
Mr. Stewart, a liberal, appeared optimistic about the future of the country, calling America “exceptional” for its constant fight against “thousands of years of human behavior and history.”
“I don’t believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago,” he said. “The same country with all its grace and flaws, and volatility, and insecurity, and strength, and resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected Barack Obama.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-nobody-asked-donald-trump-what-makes-america-great-165854259.html
Jon Stewart: ‘Nobody asked Donald Trump what makes America great’
Dylan Stableford, Senior editor
November 17, 2016
While plenty of questions were raised about Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Jon Stewart says there was at least one question that was never posed to the Republican nominee.
“Nobody asked Donald Trump what makes America great,” Stewart told Charlie Rose in an interview that aired on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday. “What are the metrics? Because it seems like from listening to him, the metrics are that it’s a competition. And I think what many would say is what makes us great is — America is an anomaly in the world.”
The former “Daily Show” host, who left the Comedy Central show last year, said Trump’s candidacy “has animated that thought: that a multiethnic democracy, a multicultural democracy is impossible. And that is what America by its founding, and constitutionally, is.”
Stewart, who made a few surprise appearances on stage and on television but was largely absent during 2016 election, said he “thought Donald Trump disqualified himself at numerous points” during the race. But the comedian also cautioned against painting Trump’s supporters with a broad brush.
“There is now this idea that anyone who voted for him has to be defined by the worst of his rhetoric,” Stewart said. “Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They’re afraid of their insurance premiums. In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating people as a monolith. Don’t look at Muslims as a monolith. They are individuals, and it would be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also real in our country.”
Trump, Stewart argued, isn’t even a Republican: He’s a “repudiation of Republicans.”
“Donald Trump is a reaction not just to Democrats, to Republicans,” he said. “They’re not draining the swamp. [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [House Speaker Paul] Ryan, those guys are the swamp. And what they decided to do was, ‘I’m going to make sure government doesn’t work and then I’m going to use its lack of working as evidence of it.”
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $264 Million to Settle Foreign Bribery Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/business/dealbook/jpmorgan-chase-to-pay-264-million-to-settle-foreign-bribery-charges.html?emc=edit_th_20161118&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=59914923&_r=0
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $264 Million to Settle Foreign Bribery Case
By BEN PROTESS and ALEXANDRA STEVENSON
Nov. 17, 2016
Vying for lucrative deals in China, JPMorgan Chase deployed all the usual wining-and-dining tactics that big banks use to woo clients. JPMorgan, federal authorities now say, also had ways of sweetening the deal that crossed a legal line.
Federal prosecutors and regulators announced on Thursday a settlement of roughly $264 million with the bank and its Hong Kong subsidiary, accusing them of a vast foreign bribery scheme that may have spread to a number of Wall Street banks.
The case centered on JPMorgan’s hiring practices in China, where it hired the children of Chinese leaders to win business in the fast-growing nation. Some of the well-connected candidates were unqualified, the authorities said, and often “performed ancillary work” — telltale signs of hidden bribery.
The case could lay the groundwork for the authorities to pursue penalties against other big banks as well. Banks including HSBC, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank have hinted that they face investigations into their hiring practices in China as part of a larger sweep by the agency that began in 2013.
“We do not expect this to be the last action resulting from that sweep,” Andrew J. Ceresney, the head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, told reporters on Thursday.
It is unclear what will happen to the investigation under the president-elect, Donald. J. Trump. Mr. Ceresney and other officials who led the investigation are expected to leave the government in the coming weeks.
In the investigation of JPMorgan, it was not immediately apparent whether the bank would be accused of carrying out a quid pro quo arrangement, an issue at the heart of whether JPMorgan violated United States law governing foreign bribery.
The bank argued that the hiring of well-connected employees was routine in China, and that its own hires fell into a gray area of foreign bribery laws.
But the prosecutors and regulators say that as JPMorgan hired more and more candidates based on referrals from Chinese leaders, senior bankers in several instances explicitly tied those jobs or internships to securing deals with Chinese government-run companies.
To be hired, a referred candidate had to have, in the bank’s own words, a “directly attributable linkage to business opportunity,” a scheme that enabled the company to win or retain business resulting in more than $100 million in revenue for the bank or its affiliates, prosecutors and regulators said.
“The common refrain that this is simply how business is done overseas is no defense,” said Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, whose office helped lead the criminal investigation into the bank. “This is no longer business as usual; it is corruption.”
Still, the authorities acknowledged that JPMorgan cooperated extensively with the investigation and they lowered the penalty accordingly. The bank, the authorities stated, also disciplined nearly two dozen employees and “took significant employment action” that led to the departure of six employees who participated in the misconduct.
“We’re pleased that our cooperation was acknowledged,” a JPMorgan spokesman, Brian Marchiony, said in a statement. “The conduct was unacceptable.”
“We stopped the hiring program in 2013 and took action against the individuals involved,” Mr. Marchiony added. “We have also made improvements to our hiring procedures and reinforced the high standards of conduct expected of our people.”
When the China hiring investigation first came to light in a front-page article in The New York Times three years ago, it topped a growing list of regulatory problems at the bank. In addition to the $6 billion so-called London whale trading scandal, the bank reached a $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department over its sale of mortgage securities in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement in the China hiring case puts to rest one of JPMorgan’s last big regulatory headaches.
For all the scrutiny of big banks, no top bankers have gone to jail since the financial crisis — an absence that has drawn much criticism and public debate.
Even President-elect Donald J. Trump joined the chorus of critics this year during his campaign, saying bankers should “absolutely” go to jail if they had done something “purposely illegal.”
The foreign bribery case against JPMorgan will not alleviate those concerns.
The United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn and the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington imposed a $72 million penalty on the bank but did not charge any of the bankers who doled out the jobs, though the investigation is ongoing.
The bank itself also secured a moral victory by avoiding criminal charges, and instead negotiated a rare nonprosecution agreement.
The S.E.C. will assess the largest punishment, about $130 million of the overall $264 million settlement, while the Fed will impose a roughly $62 million penalty.
JPMorgan competed with other big global banks to secure lucrative assignments in China as state-controlled companies were selecting banks to help them go public. And at one point, some JPMorgan bankers concluded that they needed to escalate their hiring to better compete with their rivals.
“We lost a deal to DB today because they got chairman’s daughter work for them this summer,” one JPMorgan investment banking executive remarked to colleagues, using the initials for Deutsche Bank.
Another JPMorgan managing director in Asia wrote that bank needed to ramp up its client referral program, adding that people thought the other banks “are doing a much better job.” It was later decided that referrals by so-called decision makers — Chinese clients who had the ability to influence a deal — would receive priority.
JPMorgan’s hiring effort, known within the bank as the Sons and Daughters program, began a decade ago. Initially, the program sought to prevent violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the law that underpins the case against JPMorgan and essentially bans United States companies from giving “anything of value” to a foreign official to win “an improper advantage” in retaining business.
But as the bank faced increased competition, and it expanded the program in 2009, senior JPMorgan bankers “institutionalized” the hiring, federal authorities say.
They explicitly tied those jobs or internships to securing deals with Chinese government-run companies, the prosecutors and regulators say, using them as “a tool to influence senior officials.”
“The so-called Sons and Daughters program was nothing more than bribery by another name,” Leslie R. Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement.
Over a seven-year period, JPMorgan hired about 200 interns and full-time employees at the request of clients, potential clients and foreign government officials, authorities say. Around half of these candidates were referred by government officials at Chinese state-owned companies and government agencies. JPMorgan’s executives in Asia then used their connections with these government agencies to help the company and clients navigate tangled regulatory landscapes.
In late 2010, a JPMorgan employee in Hong Kong created a spreadsheet that tracked hires to specific clients. The spreadsheet included a column for the amount of revenue attributable to the hire.
Many of the job candidates were unqualified, the authorities said, but JPMorgan hired them anyway.
There was the hire whose productivity was described as “photocopier” level, and the son of a powerful executive who had a Wharton degree but a “not very impressive, poor G.P.A.” and had both an “attitude issue” and a “napping problem.”
Then there was the son of a Chinese official who did “very, very poorly” in his interviews but still secured a position in New York only to be transferred again. A JPMorgan banker later reported that the hire “sent out an e-mail (which he inadvertently copied to an H.R. person), where he made some inappropriate sexual remarks.” Ultimately, his peers described him as “immature, irresponsible and unreliable,” but he kept his job.
The internal cost of the Sons and Daughters program would later be chalked up to “a marketing expense,” prosecutors and regulators said. When JPMorgan executives in New York complained, executives in Asia would step in. On at least one occasion, the Asia unit created a position in New York and diverted some of its budget to pay the candidates.
Kara Brockmeyer, the head of the S.E.C.’s foreign bribery unit, noted that the bank’s “internal controls were so weak that not a single referral hire request was denied.”
The bank’s internal emails also show reluctance to hire well-connected candidates unless doing so would definitely lead JPMorgan to win business.
In one email, bankers discussed the possibility of honoring a hiring request from a senior executive of a private Chinese manufacturing company that was preparing an initial public offering of stock. When the offering was postponed and one of the bankers inquired whether it was worth hiring the person, a JPMorgan executive in Hong Kong responded: “I am supportive of bringing her on board given what’s at stake,” while adding, “How do you get the best quid pro quo from the relationship upon confirmation of the offer?”
A banker responded: “The client has communicated clearly the quid pro quo on this hire.” The company ultimately chose JPMorgan to work on the offering.
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $264 Million to Settle Foreign Bribery Case
By BEN PROTESS and ALEXANDRA STEVENSON
Nov. 17, 2016
Vying for lucrative deals in China, JPMorgan Chase deployed all the usual wining-and-dining tactics that big banks use to woo clients. JPMorgan, federal authorities now say, also had ways of sweetening the deal that crossed a legal line.
Federal prosecutors and regulators announced on Thursday a settlement of roughly $264 million with the bank and its Hong Kong subsidiary, accusing them of a vast foreign bribery scheme that may have spread to a number of Wall Street banks.
The case centered on JPMorgan’s hiring practices in China, where it hired the children of Chinese leaders to win business in the fast-growing nation. Some of the well-connected candidates were unqualified, the authorities said, and often “performed ancillary work” — telltale signs of hidden bribery.
The case could lay the groundwork for the authorities to pursue penalties against other big banks as well. Banks including HSBC, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank have hinted that they face investigations into their hiring practices in China as part of a larger sweep by the agency that began in 2013.
“We do not expect this to be the last action resulting from that sweep,” Andrew J. Ceresney, the head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, told reporters on Thursday.
It is unclear what will happen to the investigation under the president-elect, Donald. J. Trump. Mr. Ceresney and other officials who led the investigation are expected to leave the government in the coming weeks.
In the investigation of JPMorgan, it was not immediately apparent whether the bank would be accused of carrying out a quid pro quo arrangement, an issue at the heart of whether JPMorgan violated United States law governing foreign bribery.
The bank argued that the hiring of well-connected employees was routine in China, and that its own hires fell into a gray area of foreign bribery laws.
But the prosecutors and regulators say that as JPMorgan hired more and more candidates based on referrals from Chinese leaders, senior bankers in several instances explicitly tied those jobs or internships to securing deals with Chinese government-run companies.
To be hired, a referred candidate had to have, in the bank’s own words, a “directly attributable linkage to business opportunity,” a scheme that enabled the company to win or retain business resulting in more than $100 million in revenue for the bank or its affiliates, prosecutors and regulators said.
“The common refrain that this is simply how business is done overseas is no defense,” said Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, whose office helped lead the criminal investigation into the bank. “This is no longer business as usual; it is corruption.”
Still, the authorities acknowledged that JPMorgan cooperated extensively with the investigation and they lowered the penalty accordingly. The bank, the authorities stated, also disciplined nearly two dozen employees and “took significant employment action” that led to the departure of six employees who participated in the misconduct.
“We’re pleased that our cooperation was acknowledged,” a JPMorgan spokesman, Brian Marchiony, said in a statement. “The conduct was unacceptable.”
“We stopped the hiring program in 2013 and took action against the individuals involved,” Mr. Marchiony added. “We have also made improvements to our hiring procedures and reinforced the high standards of conduct expected of our people.”
When the China hiring investigation first came to light in a front-page article in The New York Times three years ago, it topped a growing list of regulatory problems at the bank. In addition to the $6 billion so-called London whale trading scandal, the bank reached a $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department over its sale of mortgage securities in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. The settlement in the China hiring case puts to rest one of JPMorgan’s last big regulatory headaches.
For all the scrutiny of big banks, no top bankers have gone to jail since the financial crisis — an absence that has drawn much criticism and public debate.
Even President-elect Donald J. Trump joined the chorus of critics this year during his campaign, saying bankers should “absolutely” go to jail if they had done something “purposely illegal.”
The foreign bribery case against JPMorgan will not alleviate those concerns.
The United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn and the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington imposed a $72 million penalty on the bank but did not charge any of the bankers who doled out the jobs, though the investigation is ongoing.
The bank itself also secured a moral victory by avoiding criminal charges, and instead negotiated a rare nonprosecution agreement.
The S.E.C. will assess the largest punishment, about $130 million of the overall $264 million settlement, while the Fed will impose a roughly $62 million penalty.
JPMorgan competed with other big global banks to secure lucrative assignments in China as state-controlled companies were selecting banks to help them go public. And at one point, some JPMorgan bankers concluded that they needed to escalate their hiring to better compete with their rivals.
“We lost a deal to DB today because they got chairman’s daughter work for them this summer,” one JPMorgan investment banking executive remarked to colleagues, using the initials for Deutsche Bank.
Another JPMorgan managing director in Asia wrote that bank needed to ramp up its client referral program, adding that people thought the other banks “are doing a much better job.” It was later decided that referrals by so-called decision makers — Chinese clients who had the ability to influence a deal — would receive priority.
JPMorgan’s hiring effort, known within the bank as the Sons and Daughters program, began a decade ago. Initially, the program sought to prevent violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the law that underpins the case against JPMorgan and essentially bans United States companies from giving “anything of value” to a foreign official to win “an improper advantage” in retaining business.
But as the bank faced increased competition, and it expanded the program in 2009, senior JPMorgan bankers “institutionalized” the hiring, federal authorities say.
They explicitly tied those jobs or internships to securing deals with Chinese government-run companies, the prosecutors and regulators say, using them as “a tool to influence senior officials.”
“The so-called Sons and Daughters program was nothing more than bribery by another name,” Leslie R. Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement.
Over a seven-year period, JPMorgan hired about 200 interns and full-time employees at the request of clients, potential clients and foreign government officials, authorities say. Around half of these candidates were referred by government officials at Chinese state-owned companies and government agencies. JPMorgan’s executives in Asia then used their connections with these government agencies to help the company and clients navigate tangled regulatory landscapes.
In late 2010, a JPMorgan employee in Hong Kong created a spreadsheet that tracked hires to specific clients. The spreadsheet included a column for the amount of revenue attributable to the hire.
Many of the job candidates were unqualified, the authorities said, but JPMorgan hired them anyway.
There was the hire whose productivity was described as “photocopier” level, and the son of a powerful executive who had a Wharton degree but a “not very impressive, poor G.P.A.” and had both an “attitude issue” and a “napping problem.”
Then there was the son of a Chinese official who did “very, very poorly” in his interviews but still secured a position in New York only to be transferred again. A JPMorgan banker later reported that the hire “sent out an e-mail (which he inadvertently copied to an H.R. person), where he made some inappropriate sexual remarks.” Ultimately, his peers described him as “immature, irresponsible and unreliable,” but he kept his job.
The internal cost of the Sons and Daughters program would later be chalked up to “a marketing expense,” prosecutors and regulators said. When JPMorgan executives in New York complained, executives in Asia would step in. On at least one occasion, the Asia unit created a position in New York and diverted some of its budget to pay the candidates.
Kara Brockmeyer, the head of the S.E.C.’s foreign bribery unit, noted that the bank’s “internal controls were so weak that not a single referral hire request was denied.”
The bank’s internal emails also show reluctance to hire well-connected candidates unless doing so would definitely lead JPMorgan to win business.
In one email, bankers discussed the possibility of honoring a hiring request from a senior executive of a private Chinese manufacturing company that was preparing an initial public offering of stock. When the offering was postponed and one of the bankers inquired whether it was worth hiring the person, a JPMorgan executive in Hong Kong responded: “I am supportive of bringing her on board given what’s at stake,” while adding, “How do you get the best quid pro quo from the relationship upon confirmation of the offer?”
A banker responded: “The client has communicated clearly the quid pro quo on this hire.” The company ultimately chose JPMorgan to work on the offering.
The Unknown Unknowns, Nov 14, 2016
http://opiniojuris.org/2016/11/14/digesting-trump/
The Unknown Unknowns
by Deborah Pearlstein
While I would like to be able to offer some meaningful insight into what we might expect from the foreign policy of Donald Trump, I don’t think it’s possible to overstate at this stage the depth of current uncertainty surrounding what he will actually do. Part of this uncertainty is a function of his preternatural ability to take every position on every topic. (Latest case in point: After Trump repeatedly criticized NATO as overpriced and obsolete over the course of his campaign, we learned from President Obama today that Trump assured the President in their oval office meeting that “there is no weakening” in America’s commitment “toward maintaining a strong and robust NATO alliance.”) Another part of the uncertainty flows from the apparent depth of Trump’s own ignorance of the possibilities of the executive branch. (Again only the most recent example, the Sunday Wall Street Journal reported of Trump’s meeting with President Obama: “Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope [of the duties of running the country], said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.”)
And then there is the scope and strength of the federal bureaucracy – the career professional staffs of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies, and more – who, to judge by both newspaper reporting and my entirely non-scientific and idiosyncratic Facebook feed, are grappling mightily with whether to stay or go in the face of extraordinary new leadership. As U.S. Presidents have found time and again (and as I’ve written about in the context of the military in particular, e.g., here), this apparatus makes it difficult sharply to turn the ship of state even with the clearest of intentions and the greatest of bureaucratic skill. There is little indication (as yet) that the incoming administration has either. This is hardly intended to offer comfort or reassurance; I am incapable of greeting with anything but dread the election of a President who has, for example, openly advocated policies that would violate the law – including torturing prisoners with waterboarding “and a lot worse,” and killing the families of those he thinks threaten the United States. It is intended as a check on my own worst speculative instincts. And as a plea to those who are part of that apparatus to start out, at least, by trying to stay.
The Unknown Unknowns
by Deborah Pearlstein
While I would like to be able to offer some meaningful insight into what we might expect from the foreign policy of Donald Trump, I don’t think it’s possible to overstate at this stage the depth of current uncertainty surrounding what he will actually do. Part of this uncertainty is a function of his preternatural ability to take every position on every topic. (Latest case in point: After Trump repeatedly criticized NATO as overpriced and obsolete over the course of his campaign, we learned from President Obama today that Trump assured the President in their oval office meeting that “there is no weakening” in America’s commitment “toward maintaining a strong and robust NATO alliance.”) Another part of the uncertainty flows from the apparent depth of Trump’s own ignorance of the possibilities of the executive branch. (Again only the most recent example, the Sunday Wall Street Journal reported of Trump’s meeting with President Obama: “Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope [of the duties of running the country], said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.”)
And then there is the scope and strength of the federal bureaucracy – the career professional staffs of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, the intelligence agencies, and more – who, to judge by both newspaper reporting and my entirely non-scientific and idiosyncratic Facebook feed, are grappling mightily with whether to stay or go in the face of extraordinary new leadership. As U.S. Presidents have found time and again (and as I’ve written about in the context of the military in particular, e.g., here), this apparatus makes it difficult sharply to turn the ship of state even with the clearest of intentions and the greatest of bureaucratic skill. There is little indication (as yet) that the incoming administration has either. This is hardly intended to offer comfort or reassurance; I am incapable of greeting with anything but dread the election of a President who has, for example, openly advocated policies that would violate the law – including torturing prisoners with waterboarding “and a lot worse,” and killing the families of those he thinks threaten the United States. It is intended as a check on my own worst speculative instincts. And as a plea to those who are part of that apparatus to start out, at least, by trying to stay.
[Fitbit] D.C. residents lost the most sleep of anyone in nation the night of the presidential election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-residents-lost-the-most-sleep-of-anyone-in-nation-the-night-of-the-presidential-election-study-shows/2016/11/14/bf147d80-aa9b-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html
D.C. residents lost the most sleep of anyone in nation the night of the presidential election, study shows
By Keith L. Alexander November 14 at 5:48 PM
If it seemed as if Washington-area residents were stumbling around like the walking dead the day after last week’s presidential election, it may be because they stayed up late waiting for results and awoke early the next day.
According to the folks at Fitbit Inc., the maker of the wrist-worn, wireless fitness trackers, residents of the nation’s capital lost more sleep the night of Nov. 8 than people elsewhere in the country. D.C. residents who wore Fitbits logged 49.75 fewer minutes of shut-eye than on a typical night — far above the national average of 29.62 minutes of lost sleep.
Fitbit said Monday that researchers reviewed a sampling of its 10 million users across the nation to see how sleep patterns were affected by the wait to see whether Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton would emerge as the nation’s 45th president.
What the Fitbit could not tell was whether anxiety, excitement or other emotions played into the sleeplessness. The devices use heart rates to tell whether a user is slumbering.
“Was it excitement, stress? That’s not known, but we were surprised and impressed to see such a change in sleep in a typical day,” said Karla Gleichauf, Fitbit research data analyst.
In addition, Virginia and Maryland ranked among the top 10 sleep-deprived states.
Virginia residents came in fourth with about 40.03 minutes of lost sleep, and Maryland residents came in 10th with 36.93 minutes. Other East Coast states, including New York, Florida and Massachusetts, were in the top 10. Alabama and Arkansas also made the list.
Researchers at the San Francisco-based company said this presidential election night marked the greatest sleep-loss numbers since it began tracking patterns in 2009, two years after the company was founded. The second-biggest loss of sleep for users was the night of Super Bowl 50 in January, when average users lost about eight minutes of sleep.
D.C. residents lost the most sleep of anyone in nation the night of the presidential election, study shows
By Keith L. Alexander November 14 at 5:48 PM
If it seemed as if Washington-area residents were stumbling around like the walking dead the day after last week’s presidential election, it may be because they stayed up late waiting for results and awoke early the next day.
According to the folks at Fitbit Inc., the maker of the wrist-worn, wireless fitness trackers, residents of the nation’s capital lost more sleep the night of Nov. 8 than people elsewhere in the country. D.C. residents who wore Fitbits logged 49.75 fewer minutes of shut-eye than on a typical night — far above the national average of 29.62 minutes of lost sleep.
Fitbit said Monday that researchers reviewed a sampling of its 10 million users across the nation to see how sleep patterns were affected by the wait to see whether Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton would emerge as the nation’s 45th president.
What the Fitbit could not tell was whether anxiety, excitement or other emotions played into the sleeplessness. The devices use heart rates to tell whether a user is slumbering.
“Was it excitement, stress? That’s not known, but we were surprised and impressed to see such a change in sleep in a typical day,” said Karla Gleichauf, Fitbit research data analyst.
In addition, Virginia and Maryland ranked among the top 10 sleep-deprived states.
Virginia residents came in fourth with about 40.03 minutes of lost sleep, and Maryland residents came in 10th with 36.93 minutes. Other East Coast states, including New York, Florida and Massachusetts, were in the top 10. Alabama and Arkansas also made the list.
Researchers at the San Francisco-based company said this presidential election night marked the greatest sleep-loss numbers since it began tracking patterns in 2009, two years after the company was founded. The second-biggest loss of sleep for users was the night of Super Bowl 50 in January, when average users lost about eight minutes of sleep.
[평화재단] 미국 트럼프 당선, 어떤 미국인가 그리고 어떻게 대응할 것인가? Nov 11, 2016
[평화재단 긴급좌담회 대담록] 미국 트럼프 당선, 어떤 미국인가 그리고 어떻게 대응할 것인가?
일시 : 11월 11일(금) 저녁 7시
장소 : 평화재단 3층 강당
사회 : 조 민 (평화재단 평화교육원장)
패널 : 김현욱 (국립외교원 미주연구부 교수)
최배근 (건국대 경제학과 교수)
아웃사이더 트럼프의 당선 배경과 요인
김현욱
트럼프는 비정치인 출신으로 경선과정에서부터 주류 정치권의 무시와 견제를 받았으며, 대선공약도 전통적인 공화당 정책과 거리가 있습니다. 정책 토론도 내용 없이 직설화법과 엔터테이너 기질을 발휘했는데 결국 대통령에 당선되었습니다. 미국의 정치권과 언론 모두 밑바닥 민심을 이해를 못하고 있었던 거죠.
트럼프 당선은 아메리칸 드림이 무너지고 있다는 다른 표현인 것 같습니다. 2차 대전이 끝나고 미국은 국제 사회의 질서를 자신들의 패권을 유지하기 위해 사용합니다. UN을 만들어서 안보 체제 및 자유주의 무역 체제를 구축하였습니다. 건국 당시 미국의 가치를 국제화 시키면서 세계를 제패해 왔던 것입니다. 그런데 최근 미국의 경제력이 급감하면서 풍요로웠던 생활이 힘들어지게 된 거죠. 2008년 리먼브라더스 사태를 맞아 글로벌 경제 역시 침체에 빠집니다. 서민들이 다 힘들어지게 된 것입니다. 빈익빈 부익부 현상이 얼마나 심각한 문제인지 체감하게 되면서, 가진 자들에게 부가 쏠리는 현상에 불만을 가진 밑바닥 민심이 트럼프를 찍게 된 주요 원인 같습니다.
최배근
저는 트럼프가 될 것으로 예상했습니다. 그렇게 예상했던 이유가 있습니다. 미국이 금융 위기 이후에 투입한 돈이 20조 달러가 넘습니다. 그런데도 금융위기의 주된 피해자인 중산층 즉 백인 남성 중심의 서민의 삶은 나아지지 않았습니다. 미국은 산업화 시대의 강자였어요. 2차 대전 종전 무렵 세계인구의 3%를 차지하는 미국이 세계 제조업의 40%를 차지했습니다. 제조업이 미국의 힘을 만들었어요. 산업화 시대가 막을 내리면서 문제가 일어납니다. 1970년대 이후부터 제조업 비중이 줄면서 종사자도 감소하고 산업화 시대를 이끌었던 여러 시스템들이 하나씩 문제가 생기기 시작했어요. 금융 시스템, 사회 보장 시스템, 주거 시스템 등이 차례로 망가집니다. 특히 대학교육의 경쟁력도 떨어집니다. 작동이 제대로 안 되는 시스템에 돈을 투입해도 복구가 안 되는 거예요.
이런 상황에 대처하는 정책수단으로 통화정책과 재정정책, 두 가지가 있는데 통화정책으로는 더 이상 쓸 것이 없고 다만 재정정책 뿐입니다. 트럼프와 클린턴 둘 다 재정정책을 공약으로 내세웠습니다. 그런데 두 후보의 재정정책 내용에 차이가 있습니다.
클린턴은 민주당 내 좌파였지만 제도권에서 20여년 지내며 보수화 되었습니다. 그러다 보니까 기존 질서와 사람들이 예상할 수 있는 범위를 벗어나지 못하는 공약들을 냈어요. 안정적이긴 하지만 큰 변화는 예상할 수 없었죠. 클린턴은 재정정책을 쓰겠다고 하더라도 대신 부자들에게 세금을 더 걷겠다고 했어요. 상식적인 논리죠. 반면 트럼프는 재정정책을 클린턴 보다 2배 이상 쓰겠다고 하면서 감세까지 한다고 했습니다.
두 후보가 재정정책으로 방향을 잡은 것은 그럴 수밖에 없는 이유가 있습니다. 시스템 작동이 안 되는 상황에서 실질임금의 증가 없이 양극화가 진행되면서 대다수 미국의 가계가 큰 내상(內傷)을 입었습니다. 실업률이 떨어지면 고용률은 올라야 하는데 실업률과 고용률이 같이 떨어지는 거예요. 주택 가격은 오르는데 주택 소유율은 떨어지고 있어요. 많은 경제학자들은 자신이 보고 싶은 지표만 보고 관성적으로 얘기하다보니까 미국 경기가 회복되고 있다고 합니다만 대다수 시민들은 느끼지 못하는 거죠. 특히 사회의 중심인 백인 남성들이 자존심이 뭉개지고 소외 받았다고 생각하는 겁니다. 트럼프는 소외감에 반응한 것입니다.
미국이 기회의 평등이 보장되고 누구나 열심히만 하면 중산층으로 진입할 수 있는 사회라고 했는데 그런 아메리칸 드림이 깨졌죠. 미국의 부모 세대보다 자녀 세대가 잘 살 확률이 굉장히 낮아졌어요. 사회가 고착화되어 가는 것이죠. 특히 25세에서 54세 까지의 핵심 노동층 남성의 일자리는 미국이 OECD 국가 중에 꼴찌에서 3번째입니다. 미국은 직업이 있어야 의료보험이 돼요. 직장을 잃으면 의료서비스 사각지대에 놓이기 때문에 눈높이를 낮춰서라도 일하려고 애를 씁니다. 문제는 일자리 수준이 갈수록 낮아지고, 하위 50%의 실질임금은 오히려 줄어든다는 점입니다. 이런 서민들의 박탈감이 트럼프 현상의 배경에 있는 겁니다.
미국이 보호주의를 주장하는 것은 역사적으로 큰 의미를 가집니다. 그동안 지식인 사이에서 보호주의 주장은 금기에 속했습니다. 보호주의는 전 세계 공멸의 길이라고까지 얘기하는데, 1930년대 대공황 때 보호주의로 돌아섰다가 세계적 파국을 초래했다는 것이 정설입니다. 보호주의는 후진국들의 주장일 뿐, 선진국은 기술과 산업경쟁력의 우위가 있으므로 보호무역이 필요 없다는 것이죠. 따라서 미국이 보호주의를 주장하기 시작했다는 것은 미국의 경쟁력이 손상됐다는 것을 의미합니다.
최근 미국 내 240만 개 일자리가 중국 때문에 없어졌다는 연구 결과가 있습니다. 미국이라는 나라는 자유무역을 추구하면서도 다른 선진국과 달리 손해 보는 사람에게 정부지출을 늘려 보호해주지 못했습니다. 일반 서민들은 계속 희생만 강요받았고, 그것이 주류 정치 시스템에 대한 불신을 만들었어요. 자유무역을 비롯한 경제 시스템이 부자들만을 위해서 존재한다는 생각이 확산된 것이죠. 아웃사이더인 트럼프의 당선은 기존 시스템이 심각한 위기를 맞았다는 것을 드러내는 것이죠. 그런 점에서 트럼프의 당선은 예고된 결과입니다.
트럼프 정부의 정책방향 전망
김현욱
트럼프는 ‘미국 우선주의(America First)’를 주장합니다. 가장 쉬운 경제논리로서 미국인의 일자리를 보호한다는 명분으로 보호무역주의를 내세웁니다. 일반적인 외교 정책에 있어서도 이런 경향의 연장선이라면 이른바 고립주의라는 대외정책 노선을 예상할 수 있습니다.
트럼프는 자신의 대외노선이 고립주의가 아니라고 말합니다. 실제로 트럼프의 발언들을 보면 과거 미국의 고립주의(Monroe Doctrine)와 다른 점이 많습니다. 과거 1차 세계대전 직후 미국은 유럽의 복잡한 이슈로부터 벗어나 경제 발전을 위해 고립주의를 들고 나왔지만, 지금은 그 때와 상황이 전혀 다릅니다. 미국이 국제패권을 확립한 지금 트럼프가 고립주의 대외 정책을 추구하는 것이 과연 효과적일지는 의문입니다. 트럼프는 앞으로 미국이 세계 경찰 노릇을 하지 않고 불필요하게 외국의 일에 개입하지 않겠다고 합니다만, 과거 먼로주의 같은 고립주의로 회귀하는 것은 불가능 하다고 봅니다. 저는 미국이 다른 나라의 관심 지역에 직접 들어가 문제를 해결하려는 것이 아니라, 그 지역의 동맹국이나 파트너 나라의 힘을 빌려 해결하는 소극적 전략 아래에서 대외 정책을 추진한다는 뜻이 아닌가 하고 해석하고 있습니다.
최배근
트럼프 리스크나 트럼프 불확실성이 제기되는 이유는 트럼프 정책의 목표가 불분명하기 때문입니다. 뭘 하겠다는 것인지 잘 모르겠다는 것이죠. 2008년 금융위기를 일으킨 요인으로 소득불평등 심화와 느슨했던 정부규제를 말합니다만, 트럼프의 공약을 보면 금융위기의 교훈을 완전히 외면하고 있어요. 감세공약이 대표적입니다. 39.6%인 현행 최고 소득세율을 25%로 낮추겠다고 합니다. 25%는 대공황을 야기했던 후버 대통령 때의 세율입니다. 루즈벨트가 집권하고 이것을 81%로 끌어올리고 이후 91%까지 끌어올렸었는데 레이건 때부터 파격적으로 절반으로 깎았어요. 법인세도 파격적으로 낮추겠다고 했습니다. 세금을 깎아 준다는데 그걸 싫어할 사람은 없죠. 문제는 대부분 서민들의 경우 자신이 세금을 덜 낸다고 경제 이익이 늘지 않는다는 겁니다.
감세정책은 세금이 줄면 그 만큼 소비가 늘어날 것이라는 기대를 갖고 추진합니다. 그러나 부자들은 세금이 높거나 낮거나 소비에 별 변화가 없습니다. 감세효과가 소득증가로 나타나는 것은 서민들에게 해당되는 얘기입니다. 다시 말해서 부자감세(최고세율 인하)는 경기부양에 아무런 도움이 안 됩니다. 법인세도 줄여주면 기업이 투자를 늘리지 않겠느냐 하지만 기업들이 투자를 안 하는 것은 세금이 높아서가 아니라 투자 전망이 안보이기 때문입니다. 경기 침체기에는 법인세 인하도 효과가 없습니다.
트럼프는 향후 1조 달러 규모의 재정정책을 통해 경기를 부양하겠다고 했는데, 그 효과도 미심쩍습니다. 경기부양 목적의 재정정책에는 두 가지 접근이 있습니다. 하나는 삽질 프로젝트이고 다른 하나는 병목제거 프로젝트입니다. 실질소득이 증가하려면 좋은 일자리가 나와야 되는데 건설사업(삽질 프로젝트)은 지속적이고 좋은 일자리를 만들 수 없습니다. 선진국의 경우 경기부양을 위한 SOC 투자는 지속 효과도 없고 나중에 국가부채만 증가하게 됩니다. 우리나라의 4대강 사업이 좋은 사례입니다. 1960년대 같이 국민소득이 낮을 때는 토목사업에서 국민의 눈높이에 맞는 많은 일자리를 만들 수 있었지만 지금은 사정이 전혀 다릅니다.
금융규제 완화 공약도 문제입니다. 금융규제 완화는 새로운 금융위기의 요인이 될 수 있기 때문입니다. 게다가 이것은 트럼프 자신의 통화정책 공약과 상충하고 있습니다. 트럼프는 달러 가치를 떨어뜨려 제조업 전성기를 만들겠다는 통화정책 방향을 밝힌 바 있는데 이것은 월가의 금융가들에게는 치명적입니다. 따라서 이렇게 모순되는 정책공약들을 제대로 점검하고 조정해야 합니다. 지금 상황에서는 목표와 수단, 여러 수단 상호간의 모순 때문에 트럼프 공약의 실행가능성은 매우 낮다고 봅니다.
트럼프 정부와 아시아
김현욱
클린턴은 아시아 재 균형 정책을 더 강하게 밀어붙여서 중국의 부상을 막겠다고 한 반면, 트럼프는 아시아 개입정책에 대한 구체적인 언급 없이 중국과의 경제, 통상, 무역문제의 불균형을 바로 잡겠다고 했습니다. 트럼프 정부가 대중압박을 강화한다고 하더라도 양국의 대치면이 지금처럼 안보문제를 포함한 광범위한 영역이 아니라 경제통상 영역으로 좁아진다면 중국 입장에서 대미관계에 다소 여유를 가질 것으로 기대할 겁니다. 과연 미국이 아시아에서 전반적으로 발을 빼고 꼭 필요한 부분 이외에는 개입하려고 하지 않는다면 중국이 아시아의 리더십을 잡을 수 있는 계기가 될 수 있죠. 이런 점에서 일본은 불안해 할 것입니다. 우리도 안보상의 불안감을 표출하고 있는데 일본은 우리보다 더 불안해 할 겁니다.
최근 전문가 수준에서 안보문제와 관련한 모의 시나리오를 토의한 적이 있는데 일본이 북핵의 공격을 받았을 때 과연 미국은 어떻게 할 것인가에 대한 결론으로 미국이 북한에 핵으로 보복하지 않는 것으로 나왔습니다. 모의토의에 참가한 일본 전문가들은 큰 불안감을 표출했습니다.
북한의 핵무기 능력이 고도화 되어갈수록 일본은 자체 핵무장에 대한 열망이 더 강해질 겁니다. 아베가 왜 트럼프를 서둘러 만나러 가겠어요? (아베수상과 트럼프 11월 17일 면담 예정). 안보 불안 때문이거든요. 미국이 일본한테 안보를 자체적으로 해결하라고 한다면 일본은 핵무장에 나설 겁니다. 트럼프가 고립주의 정책을 안보 분야에서도 편다면 아시아의 안보불안과 혼란이 크게 나타날 겁니다.
그러나 구체적으로 본다면 동중국해와 남중국해 문제 등과 관련해서 미국이 지금까지 잡아온 패권과 리더십을 놓진 않겠죠. 다만 미국 국내 문제가 중요하니 외부의 문제에 대해 관심을 낮춘다는 것일 뿐, 아시아에서 미국의 지위를 상실할 정도로 입지를 빼진 않을 거라 봅니다. 트럼프 정부에서도 미국 중심의 국제질서를 아시아에서 계속 유지하면서, 중국을 옭아매고 견제하는 정책은 지속할 것으로 보입니다.
최배근
미중 무역전쟁은 불가피 할 것으로 봅니다. 이 전쟁에서 미국이 승리하더라도 일방적인 게임으로 끝날 것 같지는 않습니다. 미국이 중국산 제품에 고율의 보복관세를 부과하더라도, 중국은 나름대로 미국에 대한 지렛대를 가지고 있기 때문입니다. 미국이 중국과 환율전쟁을 했을 때 얻으려는 것이 무엇인가가 애매합니다. 환율조정이나 보복관세로 대중 무역 적자는 줄일 수 있지만 미국의 전체적인 무역 적자는 줄어들지 않기 때문입니다.중국 제품의 수입을 막을 경우 미국 소비자에게 대체품을 공급해야 합니다. 그런데 미국에서는 중국에서 생산되는 제품을 생산할 능력이 없습니다.결국 제3국에서 수입해야 합니다. 미국 내의 임금수준으로는 가격 경쟁력을 가질 수 없어 도태된 제조업(예를 들어 컬러TV는 1984년 미국 생산중단)이 다시 부활할 가능성은 없습니다.
트럼프가 애플한테 중국에서 조립하고 있는 아이폰을 미국 내로 들여오라고 했지만, 애플은 이에 기겁을 합니다. 미국의 글로벌 기업들의 생산기지는 가격경쟁력을 생각해서 모두 해외에 있어야 합니다. 생산기지를 미국 내에 두어서는 수익성이 없습니다. 미중 무역 전쟁이 벌어지면 가장 타격을 입는 기업은 미국의 500대 글로벌 기업입니다. 인텔의 수입 중 70% 이상이 해외에서 만들어지고, 그 중 많은 부분을 중국에서 얻고 있습니다. 또 문제는 우리나라에 큰 불똥이 튄다는 것입니다. 중국과 미국의 무역에는 우리나라와 연계가 된 부분이 80%가 넘습니다. 우리나라가 직격탄을 맞게 됩니다. 미중 무역 전쟁에서 중국이 타격을 입게 되면 세계 경제가 연쇄적인 회오리 속에 빠지고 특히 신흥 국가들의 타격이 큽니다. 신흥 국가들이 타격을 입으면 수출 대상국 중 50%가 신흥국가인 우리나라는 2중으로 타격을 받습니다. 미중 무역 전쟁은 우리에게 악몽이 됩니다.
조민
현재 세계경제의 위기를 보면 역사적 차원에서 자본주의 메카니즘이 한계에 온 것이 아니냐 하는 생각이 듭니다. 문명사 전환의 시기가 도래한 것이 아닌가 하는 생각입니다.
최배근
정확한 지적이에요. 미국은 제조업으로 경제 강국이 되었습니다. 산업화 시대와 관련이 되어 있어요. 지금은 제조업 종사자가 전체의 8%, 농업분야는 2% 밖에 안 됩니다. 산업화 시대에 형성된 제조업 중심의 경제 시스템이 새로운 시대를 맞아 작동을 못하고 있는 셈입니다. 과거 농업사회에서 산업사회로 이행하는데 300년 정도 걸렸는데 지금은 산업사회에서 다음 단계로 이행하는 이행기에 들어섰다고 봅니다.
트럼프 정부의 한반도 정책과 전망
김현욱
트럼프의 북한에 대한 태도는 중구난방입니다. 김정은과 햄버거를 먹으면서 대화할 수 있다고 했다가 취소했고 김정은은 지구상에서 사라져야 된다고 했다가 그의 정권 장악력만은 칭찬해야 된다고 말하기도 했습니다. 중국을 압박해서 비핵화 시켜야 된다고 말했지만 그것이 분명한 내용을 가진 노선이나 입장으로 정리된 것은 아닌 것 같습니다.
현재 한반도 정책을 가늠할 수 있는 방법으로 공화당의 전통적 대북 정책을 볼 수 있고요. 트럼프 정부에 입각할 구성원들을 보면서 살펴볼 수 있을 것 같아요. 조지 부시 때 사람들이 많아요. 존 킬 전 상원의원 등 대부분은 북한에 강경한 입장입니다. 북한 정권이 소멸되어야 한다고 말하고 있죠.그러나 외교정책에서 북한 문제의 비중은 여전히 낮습니다. 북한 정부를 소멸시키기 위해서 갖가지 노력을 실제로 기울이진 않을 거예요. 적당히 관리하겠죠. 그런 면에서 북한에 대한 선제 타격도 현실적으로 쉽지 않고요. 지금까지 나온 대로 대북제재는 추진하면서 대화도 병행할 것으로 생각합니다.
최배근
트럼프 정부의 한미 FTA 재협상 요구에 우리 정부가 결국에는 응할 가능성이 높습니다. 최근 한국 경제가 크게 나빠졌는데 1997년 IMF사태 당시와 비교됩니다. 세계경제 차원에서는 1930년대 대공황 당시와 비교하고 있습니다. 과거의 경험이 있다 보니까 은폐하고 있지만 사실 한국 경제의 체력은 최근 수년간 크게 떨어졌습니다. 대공황 당시는 제조업에서 일자리가 많았어요. 우리나라의 1997년 외환위기에도 산업 경쟁력은 건강해서 수출이 쉽게 회복됐어요. 그러나 지금은 과잉 제조업의 구조조정, 특히 대기업의 수출주력 분야가 문제입니다. 우리의 경제체력이 크게 저하되어 있는 이러한 상황에서 외부의 투기자본이 침투한다면 문제입니다. 이를 방어할 수 있는 외환보유가 충분하지 않습니다.
우리 경제가 급속히 약화되고 있는데 정부 대응은 추상적입니다. 관료들은 자신들의 임기 내에 이런 문제들이 터지지 않기만을 바라고 있습니다.가계부채나 부동산도 마찬가지입니다. 가계의 하위 40%는 소득이 줄고 전체가계의 80%가 소비를 줄이고 있어요. 하위 20%는 빚을 내서 소비를 하고 있습니다. 자신들의 미래에 대한 위기의식을 느끼고 불확실성에 위협을 느껴서 내 살 길을 각자 찾겠다는 것이죠.
트럼프가 당선되고 나서 글로벌 차원에서도 각자 도생의 시대로 나간다고 하더라고요. 경제는 심리라는 말이 있어요. 경제 주체들이 자신감을 잃고 정부에 대해서는 신뢰를 못하고 있고요. 그렇다면 소비는 위축되고 경제는 더 안 좋아질 수밖에 없죠. 걱정스럽습니다.
우리는 어떻게 대응할 것인가?
최배근
미국의 모습을 보면 방황하고 있는 것 같아요. 세계에서 가장 강한 리더십을 발휘 해왔던 나라가 방황한다는 건 세계 경제가 혼돈에 빠질 수밖에 없다는 겁니다. 트럼프가 됐을 때에 재앙이라고 했어요. 우리의 체력이 약해진 상태에서 트럼프 리스크는 재앙이라는 말입니다. 우리의 체력이 급속도로 나빠지고 있고요. 체력이 방전하는 상황까지 가고 있죠.
정치가 살아나야 된다고 봅니다. 국민 각자는 자기 방어에 급급할 수밖에 없는 것이니 만큼 정치인들이 정확히 세상을 읽고 국민들이 잘 살 수 있는 길이 어떤 것인지 제시해야 합니다. 그렇지 않고 준비 없이 권력을 잡아 뭔가 다 할 수 있는 것처럼 큰 소리만 치는 현실이 안타까운 것이죠.
김현욱
트럼프가 됐다고 너무 당황할 필요는 없을 것 같아요. 시간이 지나면 불확실성이 해결될 것이고요. 클린턴이 당선된다면 오바마 3기로 기존 대북정책을 유지할 것이고 한반도 정세가 변할 가능성이 없었는데, 그런 면에서 트럼프가 오히려 많은 기회를 열어 줄 수 있습니다.
조민
현재 문명사적인 구조 전환기에 들어섰다고 볼 수 있습니다. 절박한 상황입니다. 우리가 처한 안보와 경제의 쌍둥이 위기를 트럼프 정부를 맞이해서 기회로 바꿀 수 없을까. 위기를 기회로 바꿔야 한다는 것이 우리의 명제입니다. 불행하게도 지금 우리는 국기 문란 상황에서 식물정부 아래에 있습니다. 세계정세가 미국 대선을 계기로 거대한 도전으로 밀려오고 있죠. 절체절명의 순간입니다. 이 위기를 극복하기 위해서는 깊고 체계적 진단 위에서 대안을 모색해 가야 합니다. 대안 모색은 우리 모두의 역할입니다. 세계의 변화 속에서 맞이한 내외의 위기를 반드시 기회로 바꿔야 합니다.지금까지 좌담회에 참석해주신 여러분께 감사말씀 드립니다. 감사합니다.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)