America's
trade policy is in incoherent shambles. Decades of neoliberal "free trade" pacts -- which as
often as not simply gave corporations an end run around the state, or their very own rigged,
pseudo-legal system -- have created terrible social carnage around the world and a furious
political backlash. And President Trump's incoherent, haphazard response has done little to
change the system, let alone reform it in a sensible fashion.
Overhauling such a gargantuan, world-spanning system is a dizzying task. But Timothy Meyer
and Ganesh Sitaraman at the Great Democracy Initiative have a
new paper that presents a solid starting point for developing a fundamental reform of
American trade structure.
Meyer and Sitaraman identify three large problems with the status quo, and propose policy
solutions for each:
The complicated and unbalanced structure of the bureaucracy that oversees trade
policy
The enormous pro-rich bias that is built into trade deals
How the inequality resulting from trade routinely goes totally unaddressed
Let's take these in turn.
The extant trade bureaucracy -- as usual for the American state -- is highly fragmented and
bizarrely structured. There is the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade
Representative, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, plus the
International Development Finance Corporation coming soon. Then there are a slew of other
agencies that have some bearing on trade-related security or economic development.
Meyer and Sitaraman logically suggest combining most of these functions into a single
Department of Economic Growth and Security. The point is not just to streamline the trade
oversight structure, but also to make it consider a broader range of objectives. Neoliberals
insist that trade is simply about making the self-regulating market more "efficient," but trade
very obviously bears on employment, domestic industry, and especially security.
For instance, for all its other disastrous side effects, Trump's haphazard tax on aluminum
has dramatically
revived the American aluminum industry . Ensuring a reasonable domestic supply of key
metals like that is so obviously a security concern -- for military and consumer uses
alike -- that it wouldn't have even occurred to New Deal policymakers to think otherwise. It
takes a lot of ideological indoctrination to think there's no problem when a small price
disadvantage causes a country to lose its entire supply chain of key industrial
commodities.
Then there is the problem of pro-rich bias. Put simply, the last few decades of trade deals
have been outrageously biased towards corporations and the rich. They have powerfully enabled
the growth of
parasitic tax havens , which allow companies to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions,
starving countries of rightful revenue (and often leading to companies piling up gargantuan
dragon hoards of cash they don't know what to do with).
Corporations, meanwhile, have gotten their own fake legal system in the form of
Investor-State Dispute Settlement trade deal stipulations. As I have written before ,
the point of these arbitration systems is to create a legal system ludicrously slanted in favor
of the corporation -- allowing them not just to win almost every time, but to sue over
nonsensical harms like "taking away imaginary future profits."
Meyer and Sitaraman suggest renegotiating the tax portions of trade deals to enforce a
"formulary" tax system -- in which profits are taxed where they are made, not where they are
booked. This would go a considerable distance towards cracking down on tax havens -- who knows,
perhaps Luxembourg might even develop some productive business.
Finally, there is the problem of distributive justice. Again contrary to neoliberal dogma,
trade very often creates winners and losers -- witness the wreckage of Detroit and the fat
salaries of the U.S. executive class. Meyer and Sitaraman suggest new mechanisms to consider
the side effects of trade deals (and ways to compensate the losers), to take action against
abusive foreign nations (for example, by dumping their products below cost, or violating
environmental or labor standards), and finally directly taxing the beneficiaries.
Something the authors don't discuss is the
problem of trade imbalances . When one country develops a surplus (that is, it exports more
than it imports), another country must of necessity be in a deficit. The deficit country in
turn must finance its imports, usually by borrowing. That can easily create a severe economic
crisis if the deficit country suddenly loses access to loans -- which then harms the exporting
country, though not as much. This has been a disastrous problem in the eurozone.
The U.S. does have extremely wide latitude to run a trade deficit, because it controls the
global reserve currency, meaning a strong
demand for dollar-denominated assets so other countries can settle their international
accounts. But this creates its own problems, as discussed above.
To be fair, this is not exactly an omission for a paper focused on domestic policy. Creating
a specifically international trade architecture would require an entire paper of its own, if
not a book or three. But it would be something future trade policymakers will have to
consider.
At any rate, it's quite likely that trade policy will be a major topic of discussion in 2020
-- if for no reason other than Trump's ridiculous shenanigans in the area. However, even that
demonstrates an important fact: The U.S. president has a great deal of unilateral authority
over trade. Democrats should be thinking hard about how they would change things.
This paper is a great place to start.
President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more
than 700,000 Americans.
The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed
to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work
or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to
collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that
those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent,
according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive
that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20
percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans
would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.
The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.
The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through
executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is
expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes
through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not
include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on
parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed
those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative
policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.
"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law,"
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the
Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do
not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from
Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His
work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
When people who voted for Obama realized the Obama is a fraud with strong CIA connections it
was too late...
When people who voted for Trump realized that Trump was a fraud with strong Israeli
connections it was too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls. ..."
...And it seems likely, if not certain, that the caravan is a political stunt that will
end in disappointment for the caravan migrants. So I fail to see why you are so angry Debs.
Our discussion doesn't ignore the realities. Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even
illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an
opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls.
We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA!
is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia. This is clear from
Democratic Party priorities and actions as well as what they don't say or do.
"... Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire. ..."
"... As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility. ..."
"... The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP. ..."
That is, he started off on the wrong foot. Campaigning as a populist who eschewed accepted
mainstream "progressive" and "conservative" political positions, he completely cratered the
unpopular Republican orthodoxy during the 2016 primaries by promising such heretical ideas as
a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection for Medicare/Medicaid and social security,
improvement on Obamacare, higher taxes on the wealthiest and a massive infrastructure program
to rebuild the decaying facilities of this so-called once grate nation.
These are all ideas that gained the support of enough Obama voters and independents in
just the right flyover states to lead Trump to an improbable victory while being soundly
thrashed in the popular voting nationwide. A stunning, historical accomplishment as much as
and as much in reaction too, the 2008 Obama victory.
Of course, to those of us who understand the modern GOP and the history of the lying-ass
self promotion of the Trump entertainment spectacle its own self, we were neither duped nor
surprised when the initial 2017 legislative agenda items proferred were none of the populist
agenda but instead were the repeal of Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the
reversal of all Obama executive orders, most notably in the areas of refugee resettlement and
immigration.
Trump, the so-called change agent who in fact was and still is clueless regarding how to
function as President simply let the craven Obama opposition leaders of the prior 8 years,
McConnell and Ryan set out the typical GOP legislative agenda, which is opposed by a
majority, in some cases overwhelming majority, of Amerikkkans.
Obamacare repeal failed memorably based on but one late night thumb's down taken more out
of personal revenge than the ideology of a very soon to be dead Senator.
Trump's ruling style in large part has substituted for any sense of a coherent agenda in
that he obviously cares only about his base (an obdurate block of 36% of the electorate
consisting almost entirely of white, entitled, racist baby boomers who have devolved into
anti-democratic fascists now that they no longer represent a majority of the US population
and believe (falsely) they have something to protect).
Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are
100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and
trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade
practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of
empire.
While I have my own view of whether any of Trump's policies contain great value from a
long term historical perspective, I do recognize Trump's appeal to certain sectors of the
internet, including most obviously certain useful idiots of the ultra left.
I do not believe his victory to be a fluke of nature but rather in keeping with the
current worldwide trend borne of aging whitebread fear, cyncism and disenchantment with
elitist political/economic establishments and which has been amped to a viral degree by a
staggering wealth disparity, but only as it impacts the formerly entitled feeling, aging
white people situated in western countries.
The natural response to any socially or cultural threat is to band together tribally and
fight back. And the main threat, when it is boiled down, is the fear of overpopulation (and
its accompnaying unstoppable environmental degradation) driven by what is viewed
through the Trump voter political lens as non-white, primitive, illsuited people from
shithole countries who are and will continue to ruin Amerikkka and Western Europe.
As perfectly illustrated by the migrant caravan heading to Tijuana.
Unfortunately, Trump through disinterest or incompetence or both hasn't followed through
either with enough of the promises he made that are actually meaningful to most people,
whether GOP or Democratic. He has been able to bind his tribe to him and conquer the GOP
political apparatus simply because the Party platform was already so badly decayed
(overcooked Reagan leftovers) and out of touch with reality pre-Trump that the Donald could
bend delusional conservative tropes in any way he saw fit to his electoral advantage. As long
as he infotained well, and he has indeed, he would dominate.
As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is)
but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for
any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility.
In other words, Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter. This
particular breed of business person is not an exception in the US but rather the rule. In
fact, the US system has devolved to the point where laws and regulations now enfranchise what
previously had been considered illegal activity. Amerikkkans are heavily incentivised these
days by the call to a form of monopolistic, crony capitalism and institulionised rigged
gambling ("Wall Street"), which in more quaint times was considered mobsterism.
Institutions have been purposefully compromised so they no longer support whatever
criminal laws still exist. It is not by accident that the IRS is now chronically understaffed
and has no effective way to stop income tax cheating or collection of the minimal taxes now
due.
It is not by accident that Trump's main role as President is to weaken institutions such
as the media, to further debase language and kill whatever generally accepted objective truth
remain extant in the land. He is recognisable to all Amerikkkans as a CEO in support of this
ongoing wave of legal criminality through which the 1% and their lackeys section have
prospered at the expense of the 99%.
The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police
through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this
system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low
point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP.
And no, I don't believe the Demotardic Party to be absolved of blame in any way. Rather,
the Demotards have entirely gone along to get along with this same trend because of course
the Party leaders have been able to criminally enrich themselves and their cronies along the
way too.
However, let's be real for minute and drop all pretense of holier than thou keyboard
revolutionism. The ultimate solution of the world's disease is not going to be resolved in
2018 through a political revolution, especially one inspired by the disharmony and fraud of
internet based social media and its acolytes. D'uh.
Look around. Since we have been blogging our lives away the world has only grown further
away from leftism. We live in a fascist police state owned and operated by teh ultra wealthy
who have dropped pretense of any humanitarian or religious concern for those less firtunated
than themselves.
Donald Trump has one more chance to make himself truly into the transformational leader he
believes himself to be in his degraded soul.
The first bill on the 2019 legislative needs to be a bipartisan infrastructure bill of
such scope and magnitude that it will serve not only a political change of direction but also
redirect the economy in such way that wealth is re-directed from the wealthy to the rest of
us, particularly those able bodied non-college educated people who have suffered through the
last several decades without hope or gain.
Trump must dictate to his party that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will not only
be maintained but strengthened through improved benefits.
Am I dreaming? Yes, I admit that I am. But I'm also calling out to the criminal conman in
chief: it's not too late to reclaim your own legacy.
Among the many untruths told about Donald Trump is the claim that his is not a movement of
ideas. As a candidate in 2016, Trump may not have spoken the language of the policy wonks. But
unlike those Republicans who did, his view of the world was not a stale ideological cliche. It
was instead refreshingly frank: about a foreign policy that couldn't win the wars it waged, an
economy that imperiled middle- and working-class America, and an immigration regime only the
employers of illegal nannies could love. Trump recognized reality, and that drew to his cause
independent-minded intellectuals who had also done so. The Trump movement suffers not from a
dearth of ideas or thinkers, but a dearth of institutions. It has thinkers but no think
tank.
F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, is one
of its thinkers. His new book, The Republican Workers Party , comes from a publisher --
Encounter -- led by another, Roger Kimball. Buckley is no relation to William F., who as
writer, editor, and Firing Line host did more than anyone to make conservatism a byword
for eloquence in the latter half of the 20th century. But much as the other Buckley remade the
Right by founding National Review in 1955, this one aims to bring about a profound
change of heart and mind among conservatives. He wants to make good on the promise of the GOP
as a party for American workers.
It was a promise made right from the beginning, when in the mid-19th century the Republicans
were the party of free labor against the slavocracy. But the GOP and the country lost their
way. Today, in Buckley's telling, a self-perpetuating "New Class" of administrators and
mandarins runs the country from perches of privilege in the academy and nonprofit sector, as
well as the media, government, and much of the business world. Republicans of the Never Trump
variety are as much a part of this ruling caste as Clinton-Schumer-Pelosi Democrats are. And if
you might wonder whether someone in Buckley's position isn't part of the same professional
stratum, his answer is that he very much aspires to be a traitor to his class, just as Donald
Trump is.
Trump, writes Buckley, is "unlike anything we've seen before, for the simple reason that
he's up against something that we've never seen before: a liberalism that has given up on the
American Dream of a mobile and classless society." Those who today style themselves as
progressives are nothing of the sort -- they are not revolutionaries but the new aristocrats:
"They are Bourbons who seek to pass themselves off as Jacobins. They have bought into a radical
leftism, while resisting the call to unseat a patrician class that leftists in the past would
have opposed."
This is an eloquent explanation for an inversion that has puzzled many observers. Today's
Left, at least the mainstream Left represented by the Democratic Party, is now
establishmentarian. The Republican Right is now populist, if not downright revolutionary. "When
the upper class is composed of liberals who support socialist measures to keep us immobile and
preserve their privileged position," Buckley argues, "class warfare to free up our economy by
tearing down an aristocracy is conservative and just, as well as popular."
Buckley came to these conclusions before the rise of Donald Trump. They are at the heart of
his last two books, The Way Back and The Republic of Virtue . He recognized in
Trump a force for salutary change. So in early 2016, he signed up as a speechwriter for the
candidate and his family. At one point, this attracted unwanted attention: a speech delivered
by Donald Trump Jr. was found to have plagiarized an article in . Except it wasn't plagiarism:
Buckley was the author of both. I was editor of the magazine at the time, and Buckley is
correct when he says in The Republican Workers Party that I enjoyed the non-scandal --
because it brought attention to an essay I thought deserved a brighter spotlight than it had
initially received.
A further disclosure or two is in order: I also published some of the material that appears
in The Republican Workers Party in the journal I now edit, Modern Age , and I'm
thanked in the book's acknowledgments. My warm words for Buckley's last volume are quoted on
the dust jacket of this one. The review you're reading now is honest, but subjective -- I'm a
part of the story. Only a small one, however: Buckley reveals many details of the Trump
campaign and post-election transition that I had never heard before, including how Michael
Anton came to be hired and fired.
The campaign memoir is intriguing in its own right, but it's in the service of the book's
larger purpose. I've known Buckley to refer to himself as an economic determinist, and he's
also said that the future will be decided by a fight between the right-wing Marxists and the
left-wing Marxists. But those are exaggerations, and The Republican Workers Party isn't
primarily about economics: quite the contrary, it's about solidarity, humanity, and the
Christian spirit of brotherhood. The book is informed by a religious sensibility as much as it
is by policy acumen. But it's a religious sensibility that addresses the soul through material
conditions. Buckley is critical of attempts at a "moral rearmament crusade" that amounts to
shaming the poor and blaming them for their own condition.
On this, Buckley is at odds with what movement conservatism has promoted over the last
30-odd years, which is a pure moralism alongside a theoretically pure free-market economism,
each restricted to its own categorical silo. An economic conservative or libertarian might thus
approach Buckley's book with the trepeditation of a holy Inquisitor fearful that a friend will
be found committing heresy. But there is little in these pages that a free-market conservative
can quibble with at the policy level: rather it is the spirit in which economic conservatives
conduct politics that Buckley criticizes. He is even on the side of conservative orthodoxy,
more or less, when it comes to tariffs. He's a free trader at heart, though not a dogmatic
one.
On immigration, he favors a more Canadian-like, points-based system that would prioritize
skills, with a view toward providing maximum benefit for our current citizens, especially the
least well off among them. The present system "admits people who underbid native-born Americans
for low-skill jobs, while refusing entry to people with greater skills who would make life
better for all Americans." Canada lets in many more immigrants in proportion to its population
than the United States does, but "Canadians see an immigration policy designed to benefit the
native-born, so they don't think their government wants to stick it to them," even when it
comes to generous admission of refugees.
Buckley speaks from experience about immigration and Canada -- he was born, brought up, and
lived most of his life there before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2014. Like Alexander Hamilton,
whose Caribbean origins gave him a view of America's national economy unprejudiced by sectional
interests, Buckley's Canadian background gives him an independent vantage from which to
consider our characteristic shibboleths unsparingly. The separation of powers, for one, is a
dismal failure that "has given us two or more different Republican parties: a presidential
party, which today is the Republican Workers Party, but also congressional Republican parties
rooted in the issues and preference of local members. There's the Freedom Caucus composed of
Tea Party members, the more moderate Main Street Partnership and whatever maverick senators
were thinking this morning." Federalism too is a mixed bag. These are themes touched lightly
upon here but worked out in detail in such earlier Buckley books as The Once and Future
King .
That's not to say there's something alien about Buckley's ideas. He's an heir to Viscount
Bolingbroke, as were many of the Founding Fathers. (He contrasts Bolingbroke's disinterested
ideal of a patriot king, for example, with the identity-driven politics of the Democratic
Party.) But Buckley is also an heir to George Grant and the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Red
Toryism, a form of conservatism that does not bother itself with anti-government formulas that
never seem to reduce the size of government one iota anyway. Buckley's heroes are "leaders such
as Disraeli, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) and even Winston Churchill himself."
"They were conservative" but "they supported generous social welfare policies."
The policies that Buckley is most concerned about, however, are those that generate social
mobility. Education is thus high on his agenda. He is a strong supporter of vouchers and school
choice and points again to Canada as a success story for private schools receiving public
funds. But America is a rather different country, and as popular as vouchers are on the Right,
some of us can't help but wonder whether they would lead to the same outcome in primary and
secondary education that federal financial aid has produced in higher education. With the money
comes regulation, and usually soaring prices, too.
But Buckley is right that the defects of our present education system go a long way toward
explaining the rise of the new status class, and other countries have found answers to the
questions that perplex American politics -- or some of them at least. More adventurous thinking
is required if anything is to be saved of the American dream of mobility, in place of the
nightmare of division into static castes of winners and losers.
Libertarian economists and blame-the-poor moralizers are not the only figures on the Right
Buckley criticizes. He has no patience for the barely disguised Nietzscheanism of certain "East
Coast" Straussians, who imagine themselves to be philosopher-princes, educating a class of
obedient gentlemen who will in turn dominate a mass of purely appetitive worker bees and cannon
fodder.
Buckley's book is an argument against right-wing heartlessness. Its title may conjure in
some minds phantoms of the National Socialist German Workers Party or America's own penny-ante
white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, on which the media has lavished a certain
amount of attention in recent years. But fascists are not traditionalists, workers, or even,
properly speaking, socialists -- they simply steal whatever terms happen to be popular. Buckley
refuses to concede their claims and appease them.
He is eloquent in his American -- not white -- nationalism. "There isn't much room for white
nationalism in American culture," he writes, "For alongside baseball and apple pie, it includes
Langston Hughes and Amy Tan, Tex-Mex food and Norah Jones. You can be an American if you don't
enjoy them, but you might be a wee bit more American if you do." It's populism, not
nationalism, that he considers a toxic term, its genealogy tracing to figures like "Pitchfork
Ben" Tillman, a Jim Crow proponent and defender of lynch mobs.
He is right to defend the honor of nationalism, but Buckley may be mistaken in his animus
toward "populism," a word that for most people is more likely to bring to mind William Jennings
Bryan than the Ku Klux Klan.
Buckley's project in The Republican Workers Party parallels on the Right the task
taken up by Mark Lilla on the Left in last year's The Once and Future Liberal . Like
Lilla, Buckley wants to see a revival of mid-20th-century liberalism. For both, politics is
ultimately class-based, not identity-based. Lilla trains his fire on the identity-parsing Left,
while Buckley rebukes the Right for failing to fight the class war -- or rather, for fighting
on the wrong side, that of the self-serving New Class, the aristocracy of education,
connections, and right-thinking opinion.
This may seem nostalgic, but it's not: Buckley does not expect a return to JFK or Camelot,
even if, like Lilla, he once borrowed a title from T.H. White. The 21st century can only give
us a new and very different Kennedy or Disraeli -- an insurgent from the Right to retake the
center. In Donald Trump, F.H. Buckley found such a figure, but a movement needs a program as
well as a leader, and the program has to be grounded in an idea of humanity and the limits of
politics. The nation defines those limits, and while not every Trump supporter will agree with
Buckley's policy thought in all its specifics, the spirit of Buckley's endeavor represents what
is finest in the Trump moment, and what is best in conservatism, too.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into
three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners,
plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist
constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion.
And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion.
What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65
percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo,
which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class
loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a
blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.
These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably
proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the
poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of
the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and
he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.
What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that
their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems
to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of
the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've
lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were
betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party
implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of
unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of
people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice
hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that
he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.
GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is
happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?
ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly
in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements.
Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who
hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be
noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more
centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.
What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized,
because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very
obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo
Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court,
saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and
one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat
against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself,
really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six
months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is
known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took
her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.
The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones
upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate.
Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known
figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the
players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was
exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has
yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years
ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This
is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian
supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro
poses.
GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on
Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and
communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us
today.
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..."
)
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks
National Socialist Program ). he program championed
the right to employment , and called for the institution of
profit sharing , confiscation of
war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers,
nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores,
extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a
national education program of all classes, prohibition
of child labor , and an end to the dominance of
investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and
"national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic
element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword
for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as
a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal
doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated
as a working-class political party . This is not true about
Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections.
After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political
movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections
which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order";
which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon
gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced
mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one.
Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler,
the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had
brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation,
for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory,
against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical
past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.
-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)
It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist
politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously
pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist
mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.
Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals,
its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present,
these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.
In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal
cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the
face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.
These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns
and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious,
geographical, or ethnic -- can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves
with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests
and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal
gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past
societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point.
This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society
should look and behave.
In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:
We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is
the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total
reality, we subordinate everything.
The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal
family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism
and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?
In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is
the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the
father of the family in patriarchy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The
leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority
derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal
family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds
its purest representation in these norms.
Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph
Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the
woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official
National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious
force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . the highest calling of the National Socialist
woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for
her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question"
as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article
"Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes
the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."
Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist
politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity,
and struggle.
With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German
fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue
Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the
respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation
in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context;
More about Jason Stanley
This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so
often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining
actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The
chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:
- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei
Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize
virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating
between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would
agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are
a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a
way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.
I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's
demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything
the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative
and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under
an avalanche of partisanism.
If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany
by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will
have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
strip away the right of Corprati0ns to have the legal standing of a person in a Court of
Law .
when we could just abolish the institution of incorporation without remorse? This
would like treating a cause of widespread disease with an ounce of inexpensive
prevention.
Buh-bye limited liability parasitism. Buh-bye rootless, world-wandering capital with scant
interest in the hosts' long-term wellbeing.
I suppose that there would be a shrill outcry of protest from the many little fire teams,
squads, and platoons of mind rapists (e.g. A. Cockburn) who have a career interest in
complaining for a living. But so what? It would be fun to watch "social justice" factions
twist and squirm as a chorus of abolitionists asks why the "Resistance" never resisted
"corporatocracy" with abolitionism. The rapists will "spew" much sanctimonious b.s.
defensively between artful meals in nice restaurants, but the chorus will know a real
reason. Lefty humanist finds incorporation very useful for cultivating the intense
concentration of wealth and power which he pretends to oppose.
Eventually the chorus will get around to asking lefty internationalist about his
contemporary plans to merge every firm with government without looking like an old fashioned
commie expropriationist. The chorus might ask the mind rapists still more embarassing
questions:
Righteous Lefty, why would you establish incorporation now if it wasn't a feature of
commerce already? Because you would not then have a little handful of company shares to
trade in a stock exchange? Nor be planning to exploit a stock tip from an ally who is
married to a corporate go-getter with C-level knowledge of plans?
Traditional labor unions, TOO, have been involved with the racketeering of incorporation.
Take the UMWA, for example. Where in the eleven points of its constitution is there any hint
that labor organizers and their Blair Mountain warriors were thinking about abolishing a
pernicious institution which had done so much to slant market power in favor of neverlaboring
mine operators?
It's been obvious for some time that the allegedly right wing "ALT RIGHT" is another
faction with little interest in getting rid of the corporation. It is sympathetic,
however, to old fashioned communist schemes like "Social Security" and communist health care
finance. So what, um, pecuniary interest does its leading lights have in maintaining the
incorporated status quo? Explain, please.
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
"... Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value. ..."
Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security,
infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the
costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes
of Trump's campaign that were of value.
Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important energies. But being Trump,
he's poisoned these issues for a couple of generations. No serious leader will be able to
touch these things.
Add this to all the institutional and political ruin he has created.
"... he has brought North Korea away from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier, and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies. ..."
Trump is not crazy at all. He is the proponent of a particular philosophy, Trumpism, which
he follows very clearly and consistently.
As president, he has had significant successes. Notably, he has brought North Korea away
from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with
that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the
American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia.
On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier,
and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of
the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the
2016 primaries would have followed the same policies.
Trumpism is undeniably a form of near-fascism. Trump has followed viciously anti-immigrant
tendencies, and this, along with his ties to out-and-out racists, is the worst part of his
presidency. But these horrible aspects do not at all show that he is crazy. He has used them
coldly and calculatedly to gain power.
And while his schtick and bluster are indeed bizarre, he has used them very consistently
to keep a 40%-plus approval rating in the face of an Establishment opposition the like of
which has used against a president at least in our lifetimes.
As I have commented here before, except for Trump's disgusting anti-immigration policies,
George W. Bush was on balance a far worse president.
This is partially incorrect view on Trump foreign policy. At the center of
which is careful retreat for enormous expenses of keeping the global neoliberal
empire, plus military Keyseanism to revive the us economy. Which means
tremendous pressure of arm sales as the only way to improve trade balance.
NATO was always an instrument of the USA hegemony,
so Trump behavior is perfectly compatible with this view -- he just downgraded vassals
refusing usual formal respect for them, as they do no represent independent nations.
That's why he addressed them with the contempt. He aptly remarked that German stance
of relying on Russia hydrocarbons and still claiming the it needs the USA defense
is pure hypocrisy. On the other side china, Russia and North Korea can't be considered
the USA vassals.
China is completely dependent on the USA for advanced technologies so their
dreams of becoming the world hegemon is such exist are premature.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington's dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge. ..."
"... By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed "populist" Donald Trump to power. ..."
"... Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus. ..."
"... On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent. ..."
"... Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests. ..."
"... Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. ..."
"... As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats." ..."
"... Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington's global power since the 1950s ..."
"... Donald Trump acted more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. ..."
"... Beijing's low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean's busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70% percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market without peer on the planet. ..."
"... In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's northern coast to Europe. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. ..."
"... In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every successful empire," observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate states and their leaders. ..."
"... China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. ..."
"... During Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture. ..."
"... A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect." ..."
...Although they started this century on generally amicable terms, China
and the U.S. have, in recent years, moved toward military competition and open
economic conflict. When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
in 2001, Washington was confident that Beijing would play by the established
rules and become a compliant member of an American-led international community.
There was almost
no awareness of what might happen when a fifth of humanity joined the world
system as an economic equal for the first time in five centuries.
By the time Xi Jinping became China's seventh president, a decade of rapid
economic growth averaging 11% annually and currency reserves surging toward
an unprecedented $4 trillion had created the economic potential for a rapid,
radical shift in the global balance of power. After just a few months in office,
Xi began tapping those vast reserves to launch a bold geopolitical gambit, a
genuine challenge to U.S. dominion over Eurasia and the world beyond. Aglow
in its status as the world's sole superpower after "winning" the Cold War, Washington
had difficulty at first even grasping such newly developing global realities
and was slow to react.
China's bid couldn't have been more fortuitous in its timing. After nearly
70 years as the globe's hegemon, Washington's dominance over the world economy
had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive
edge.
By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization
that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in
democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed
"populist" Donald Trump to power.
Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive
and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both
Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus.
Within months of Trump's entry into the Oval Office, the world was already
witnessing a sharp rivalry between Xi's advocacy of a new form of global collaboration
and Trump's version of economic nationalism. In the process, humanity seems
to be entering a rare historical moment when national leadership and global
circumstances have coincided to create an opening for a major shift in the nature
of the world order.
Trump's Disruptive Foreign Policy
Despite their constant
criticism of Donald Trump's leadership, few among Washington's corps of
foreign policy experts have grasped his full impact on the historic foundations
of American global power. The world order that Washington built after World
War II rested upon what I've
called a "delicate duality": an American imperium of raw military and economic
power married to a community of sovereign nations, equal under the rule of law
and governed through international institutions such as the United Nations and
the World Trade Organization.
On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier
apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a
global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on
hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first
power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent.
Even after the Cold War ended, former national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski
warned that Washington would remain the world's preeminent power only as
long as it maintained its geopolitical dominion over Eurasia. In the decade
before Trump's election, there were, however, already signs that America's hegemony
was on a downward trajectory as its share of global economic power fell from
50% in 1950 to just
15% in 2017. Many financial forecasts now
project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's number one economy
by 2030, if not before.
In this era of decline, there has emerged from President Trump's torrent
of tweets and off-the-cuff remarks a surprisingly coherent and grim vision of
America's place in the present world order. Instead of reigning confidently
over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy,
Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly
troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal
trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by
self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests.
Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed)
advantage of the United States. In place of the usual democratic allies
like Canada and Germany, he is trying to weave a web of personal ties to avowedly
nationalist and autocratic leaders of a sort he clearly admires: Vladimir Putin
in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Adel Fatah el-Sisi
in Egypt, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Instead of old alliances like NATO, Trump favors loose coalitions of like-minded
countries. As he sees it, a resurgent America will carry the world along, while
crushing terrorists and dealing in uniquely personal ways with rogue states
like Iran and North Korea.
His version of a foreign policy has found its fullest
statement in his administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy.
As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous
world, filled with a wide range of threats." But in less than a year of his
leadership, it insisted, "We have renewed our friendships in the Middle East
to help drive out terrorists and extremists America's allies are now contributing
more to our common defense, strengthening even our strongest alliances." Humankind
will benefit from the president's "beautiful vision" that "puts America First"
and promotes "a balance of power that favors the United States." The whole world
will, in short, be "lifted by America's renewal."
Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips
has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly
by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation
for Washington's global power since the 1950s. During the president's first
foreign trip in May 2017, he promptly
voiced withering complaints about the supposed refusal of Washington's European
allies to pay their "fair share" of NATO's military costs, leaving the U.S.
stuck with the bill and, in a fashion unknown to American presidents, refused
even to endorse the alliance's core principle of collective defense. It was
a position so extreme in terms of the global politics of the previous half-century
that he was later forced to formally
back down . (By then, however, he had registered his contempt for those
allies in an unforgettable fashion.)
During a second, no-less-divisive NATO visit in July, he charged that
Germany was "a captive of Russia" and pressed the allies to immediately
double their share of defense spending to a staggering 4% of gross domestic
product (a
level even Washington, with its monumental Pentagon budget, hasn't reached)
-- a demand they all ignored. Just days later, he again questioned the very
idea of a common defense,
remarking that if "tiny" NATO ally Montenegro decided to "get aggressive,"
then "congratulations, you're in World War III."
Moving on to England, he promptly kneecapped close ally Theresa May, telling
a British
tabloid that the prime minister had bungled her country's Brexit withdrawal
from the European Union and "killed off any chance of a vital U.S. trade deal."
He then went on to Helsinki for a summit with Vladimir Putin, where he visibly
abased himself before NATO's nominal nemesis, completely enough that there were
even brief, angry
protests
from leaders of his own party.
During Trump's major Asia tour in November 2017, he
addressed the Asian-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) in Vietnam, offering
an extended "tirade" against multilateral trade agreements, particularly the
WTO. To counter intolerable "trade abuses," such as "product dumping, subsidized
goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies," he swore that
he would always "put America first" and not let it "be taken advantage of anymore."
Having denounced a litany of trade violations that he termed nothing less than
"economic aggression" against America, he
invited everyone there to share his "Indo-Pacific dream" of the world as
a "beautiful constellation" of "strong, sovereign, and independent nations,"
each working like the United States to build "wealth and freedom."
Responding to such a display of narrow economic nationalism from the globe's
leading power, Xi Jinping had a perfect opportunity to play the world statesman
and he took it,
calling upon APEC to support an economic order that is "more open, inclusive,
and balanced." He spoke of China's future economic plans as an historic bid
for "interconnected development to achieve common prosperity on the Asian, European,
and African continents."
As China has lifted 60 million of its own people out of poverty in just a
few years and was committed to its complete eradication by 2020, so he urged
a more equitable world order "to bring the benefits of development to countries
across the globe." For its part, China, he assured his listeners, was ready
to make "$2 trillion of outbound investment" -- much of it for the development
of Eurasia and Africa (in ways, of course, that would link that vast region
more closely to China). In other words, he sounded like a twenty-first century
Chinese version of a twentieth-century American president, while Donald
Trump
acted
more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. As
if to put another nail in the coffin of American global dominion, the remaining
11 Trans-Pacific trade pact partners, led by Japan and Canada,
announced major progress in finalizing that agreement -- without the United
States.
In addition to undermining NATO, America's Pacific alliances, long its historic
fulcrum for the defense of North America and the dominance of Asia, are eroding,
too. Even after 10 personal meetings and frequent phone calls between Japan's
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump during his first 18 months in office,
the president's America First trade policy has
placed a "major strain" on Washington's most crucial alliance in the region.
First, he ignored Abe's
pleas and cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and then, as
if his message hadn't been strong enough, he promptly imposed heavy
tariffs on Japanese steel imports. Similarly, he's
denounced the Canadian prime minister as "dishonest" and
mimicked Indian Prime Minister Modi's accent, even as he made chummy with
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and then
claimed ,
inaccurately , that his country was "no longer a nuclear threat."
It all adds up to a formula for further decline at a faster pace.
Beijing's Grand Strategy
While Washington's influence in Asia recedes, Beijing's grows ever stronger.
As China's currency reserves
climbed rapidly from $200 billion in 2001 to a peak of $4 trillion in 2014,
President Xi launched a new initiative of historic import. In September 2013,
speaking in Kazakhstan, the heart of Asia's ancient Silk Road caravan route,
he
proclaimed a "one belt, one road initiative" aimed at economically integrating
the enormous Eurasian land mass around Beijing's leadership. Through "unimpeded
trade" and infrastructure investment, he suggested, it would be possible to
connect "the Pacific and the Baltic Sea" in a proposed "economic belt along
the Silk Road," a region "inhabited by close to 3 billion people." It could
become, he predicted, "the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential."
Within a year, Beijing had
established a Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank
with 56 member nations and an impressive $100 billion in capital, while launching
its own $40 billion Silk Road Fund for
private equity projects. When China convened what it called a "belt and
road summit" of 28 world leaders in Beijing in May 2017, Xi could, with good
reason,
hail his initiative as the "project of the century."
Although the U.S. media has often described the individual projects involved
in his "one belt, one road" project as
wasteful ,
sybaritic ,
exploitative , or even
neo-colonial , its sheer scale and scope merits closer consideration. Beijing
is expected to
put a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion into the initiative by 2027, the largest
investment in human history, more than 10 times the famed American Marshall
Plan, the only comparable program, which
spent a more modest $110 billion (when adjusted for inflation) to rebuild
a ravaged Europe after World War II.
Beijing's low-cost infrastructure
loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding
construction of the Mediterranean's
busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England,
a $6 billion
railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport
corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments
could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70%
percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market
without peer on the planet.
Underlying this flurry of flying dirt and flowing concrete, the Chinese leadership
seems to have a design for transcending the vast distances that have historically
separated Asia from Europe. As a start, Beijing is building a comprehensive
network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from Siberia
and Central Asia for its own population centers. When the system is complete,
there will be an integrated inland energy grid (including Russia's extensive
network of pipelines) that will extend 6,000 miles across Eurasia, from the
North Atlantic to the South China Sea. Next, Beijing is working to link Europe's
extensive rail network with its own expanded high-speed rail system via transcontinental
lines through Central Asia, supplemented by spur lines running due south to
Singapore and southwest through Pakistan.
Finally, to facilitate sea transport around the sprawling continent's southern
rim, China has already bought into or is in the process of building more than
30 major port facilities, stretching from the Straits of Malacca across
the Indian Ocean, around Africa, and along
Europe's extended coastline. In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters
opened by global warming, Beijing began
planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious
Russian and
Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's
northern coast to Europe.
Though Eurasia is its prime focus, China is also pursuing economic expansion
in Africa and Latin America to create what might be dubbed the strategy of the
four continents. To tie Africa into its projected Eurasian network, Beijing
already had doubled its
annual trade there by 2015 to $222 billion, three times that of the United
States, thanks to a massive infusion of capital expected to reach a trillion
dollars by 2025. Much of it is financing the sort of commodities extraction
that has already made the continent China's second largest source of crude oil.
Similarly, Beijing has
invested heavily in Latin America, acquiring, for instance, control over
90% of Ecuador's oil reserves. As a result, its commerce with that continent
doubled in a decade, reaching $244 billion in 2017, topping U.S. trade with
what once was known as its own "backyard."
A Conflict with Consequences
This contest between Xi's globalism and Trump's nationalism has not been
safely confined to an innocuous marketplace of ideas. Over the past four years,
the two powers have engaged in an escalating military rivalry and a cutthroat
commercial competition. Apart from a
shadowy struggle for
dominance in space and cyberspace, there has also been a visible, potentially
volatile naval arms race to control the sea lanes surrounding Asia, specifically
in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In a 2015 white paper, Beijing
stated
that "it is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force
structure commensurate with its national security." Backed by lethal land-based
missiles, jet fighters, and a global satellite system, China has built just
such a modernized fleet of 320 ships, including nuclear submarines and its first
aircraft carriers.
Within two years, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson
reported
that China's "growing and modernized fleet" was "shrinking" the traditional
American advantage in the Pacific, and warned that "we must shake off any vestiges
of comfort or complacency." Under Trump's latest $700-billion-plus defense budget,
Washington has responded to this challenge with a crash program to build 46
new ships, which will
raise its total to 326 by 2023. As China builds new naval bases bristling
with armaments in the Arabian and South China seas, the U.S. Navy has begun
conducting assertive "freedom-of-navigation" patrols near many of those same
installations, heightening the potential for conflict.
It is in the commercial realm of trade and tariffs, however, where competition
has segued into overt conflict. Acting on his
belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," President Trump
slapped heavy tariffs, targeted above all at China, on steel imports in
March and, just a few weeks later, punished that country's intellectual property
theft by
promising tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports. When those tariffs
finally hit in July, China immediately
retaliated against what it called "typical trade bullying" with similar
tariffs on U.S. goods. The Financial Times
warned that this "tit-for-tat" can escalate into a "full bore trade war
that will be very bad for the global economy." As Trump
threatened to tax $500 billion more in Chinese imports and
issued confusing, even contradictory demands that made it unlikely Beijing
could ever comply, observers became
concerned that a long-lasting trade war could destabilize what the New
York Times called the "mountain of debt" that sustains much of China's
economy. In Washington, the usually taciturn Federal Reserve chairman issued
an uncommon
warning that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy."
China as Global Hegemon?
Although a withering of Washington's global reach, abetted and possibly accelerated
by the Trump presidency, is already underway, the shape of any future world
order is still anything but clear. At present, China is the sole state with
the obvious requisites for becoming the planet's new hegemon. Its phenomenal
economic rise, coupled with its expanding military and growing technological
prowess, provide that country with the obvious fundamentals for superpower status.
Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement
of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart
from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia,
has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing
legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.
In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every
successful empire,"
observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate
a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate
states and their leaders. Successful imperial transitions driven by the
hard power of guns and money also require the soft-power salve of cultural suasion
for sustained and successful global dominion. Spain espoused Catholicism and
Hispanism, the Ottomans Islam, the Soviets communism, France a cultural
francophonie , and Britain an Anglophone culture.
Indeed, during its century of global dominion from 1850 to 1940, Britain
was the exemplar par excellence of such soft power, evincing an enticing
cultural ethos of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the
Anglican church, the English language and its literature, and the virtual invention
of modern athletics (cricket, soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). Similarly,
at the dawn of its global dominion, the United States courted allies worldwide
through soft-power programs promoting democracy and development. These were
made all the more palatable by the appeal of such things as Hollywood films,
civic organizations like
Rotary International , and popular sports like basketball and baseball.
China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters,
not 26 letters. Its communist ideology and popular culture are remarkably, even
avowedly, particularistic. And you don't have to look far for another Asian
power that attempted Pacific dominion without the salve of soft power. During
Japan's
occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being
hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed
to propagate their similarly particularistic culture.
As command-economy states for much of the past century, neither China nor
Russia developed an independent judiciary or the autonomous rules-based order
that undergirds the modern international system. From the foundation of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1899 through the formation of
the International Court of Justice under the U.N.'s 1945 charter, the world's
nations have aspired to the resolution of conflicts via arbitration or litigation
rather than armed conflict. More broadly, the modern globalized economy is held
together by a web of conventions, treaties, patents, and contracts grounded
in law.
From its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China gave primacy to
the party and state, slowing the growth of an autonomous legal system and the
rule of law. A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance
came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China
Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful
effect." Beijing's Foreign Ministry simply
dismissed the adverse decision as "invalid" and without "binding force."
President Xi
insisted China's "territorial sovereignty and maritime rights" were unchanged,
while the state Xinhua news agency
called the ruling "naturally null and void."
If Donald Trump's vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future
and if Beijing's projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history's
largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa,
and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership
will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if
by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first
time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear
successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the "
new normal " of
climate change -- the heating of the atmosphere and the
oceans , the intensification of flood, drought, and
fire , the rising seas that will
devastate coastal cities, and the
cascading damage to a densely populated world -- could mean that the very
idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity
in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture
of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global
Power (Dispatch Books).
That might have been true .then. However, Bannon was never the puppet master (Trump is a
capitalist who has never listened to anyone else apart from his own messy ego in his life: the
idea that he would be a puppet for anyone, Bannon, Putin or whatever, is risible). Without
wanting to raise from the dead the 'Trump is teh Hitler' meme: there is a very very tiny grain
of truth in it, just as there is a very very tiny grain of truth in the right wing idea that
Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word 'socialist' in it. Hitler's initial
programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some elements of the working
class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
But Trump, a right wing Republican who is, as I've said, far more orthodox a Republican than
the media would have you believe, was never going to deliver. Bannon was the most 'left wing'
of Trump's circle (and as his admiration for Thatcher makes clear, he was never very left wing)
and he was quickly cast out. Trump did not, in fact, 'drain the swamp' and nor did he try. His
major economic policy has turned out to be .tax cuts for the rich. And he has totally failed to
follow through on the (interesting) isolationist rhetoric he used in his election campaign
(despite the fact that some of us hoped otherwise). He has turned out to be as much of a
warmonger as Obama or even Bush jr (even towards Russia, again despite what the media would
have you believe).
And we haven't heard too much about that 'trillion dollar' investment in infrastructure
recently have we?
The problem is that the Democrats have concentrated on the (mainly trivial and
uninteresting) ways in which Trump differs from previous Republican Presidents (the lies, the
silly tweets, the dubious rhetoric) and have therefore persuaded themselves that this
'unorthodox' President will have to be removed by 'unorthodox means'. 'Tain't so. Trump will be
removed the only way any President (except Nixon) has ever been removed since the dawn of the
Republic: by the opposing party organising, developing a strong program that people can believe
in, and getting out the core vote. No election has ever been won any other way. In the case of
the Democrats this means using the might and money of organised labour and activists to get
candidates who can inspire and who have a genuinely progressive message that resonates with
people.
Democrats, #Russiagate will not save you. Getting your core vote out to vote for a genuinely
progressive candidate, will.
Likbez
@Hidari 08.18.18 at 6:41 pm
Powerful post and a veryclear thinking. Thank you !
Also an interesting analogy with NSDAP the 25-point Plan of 1928
Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some
elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real, and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run-up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
Actually NSAP program of 1928 has some political demands which are to the left of Sanders
such as "Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes", ".We demand the nationalization of
all (previous) associated industries (trusts)." and "We demand a division of profits of all
heavy industries."
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood
and way of life for the citizens... ... ...
... ... ...
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or
physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality,
but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands
of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the
people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the
utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the
general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be
punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
... ... ...
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the
legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press...
.... ... ...
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as
they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...
But I think Trump was de-facto impeached with the appointment of Mueller. And that was the
plan ( "insurance" as Strzok called it). Mueller task is just to formalize impeachment.
Pence already is calling the shots in foreign policy via members of his close circle (which
includes Pompeo). The recent "unilateral" actions of State Department are a slap in the face
and, simultaneously, a nasty trap for Trump (he can cancel those sanctions only at a huge
political cost to himself) and are a clear sign that Trump does not control even his
administration. Here is how <a
href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/august/17/america-the-punitive/">Philip
Giraldi</a> described this obvious slap in the face:
The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury
England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without any
new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the belief that
Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March
4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal has recently
announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even
one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and
American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
From the very beginning, any anti-globalization initiative of Trump was sabotaged and often
reversed. Haley is one example here. She does not coordinate some of her actions with Trump or
the Secretary of State unliterary defining the US foreign policy.
Her ambitions worry Trump, but he can so very little: she is supported by Pence and Pence
faction in the administration. Rumors "Haley/Pence 2020" surfaced and probably somewhat poison
atmosphere in the WH.
Add to this that Trump has hostile to him Justice Department, CIA, and FBI. He also does not
control some critical appointments such as the recent appointment of CIA director (who in no
way can be called Trump loyalist).
Which means that in some ways Trump already is a hostage and more ceremonial President than
a real.
"... With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies. ..."
"... Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk." ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
There are four groups of one-issue voters to whom President
Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme
Court with ultra conservative judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by
naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel.
Again, on that score, President Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has
unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition to attacking the
Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners , whose main demand to Trump was
substantial tax cuts and deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's
wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public debt increases, which are going
to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm
themselves to the teeth, including with military assault weapons, with as few strings
attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them and against
students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base --
politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40
percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like
reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the
middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above
lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on hypocrisy and on excuses to
exonerate their favorite but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a
different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does and says, they would be
asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on
the back of a duck. ( -- For the record, according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims,
which amount to 7.6 a day, since his inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government
business are first and foremost another form of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon.
Trump thinks that is
OK to lie and to ask his assistants to
lie . In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them
into his own tools of propaganda. When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to
give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his
gratuitous accusations and his attacks ' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying
and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and by issuing threats
in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write
about him constantly, on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he
can change the political rhetoric when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming
weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to
some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging
report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say
against Iran (a
pet project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very
convenient to a crafty politician like Donald Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore,
observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback
to ancient times and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics
has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting, have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's
lies and misrepresentations as some 'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine for licensing
public radio and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the mass conglomeration of local
broadcasting in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and
Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well financed, and they have essentially become
powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly
presenting fictitious alternative facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason
and logic, at least for those listeners and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source
of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also made Donald Trump the
champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump
has done in his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when
his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to
take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing
President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman
diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if
one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they
are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why
would he, since he considers journalists to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him
that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment. He
prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and
emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel
of communication.
The ABC News
network has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times,
slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he have time left to do anything productive!
Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright lies
and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his,
through the end of May of this year, -- an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his
presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year, he told 5.5
lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for
his daily 'tweets', most of which are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the
common good and the general welfare of the people to the level of a frivolous private
enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by improvisation,
whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the
expense of planning for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient
government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution and what it says about the need to have "
checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump has
de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government
Departments, even his own Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the
central political stage for himself. If such a development does not represent an ominous threat
to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political
consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones.
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off by
reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations. The second
part of this claim has been pretty thoroughly demolished, so I want to look mainly at the
first. However, as we will see, the corporate tax cuts remain central to the argument.
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off
by reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations.
The emergence of Trumpism signifies deepening of the ideological crisis for the
neoliberalism. Neoclassical economics fell like a house of cards. IMHO Trumpism can be viewed
as a kind of "national neoliberalism" which presuppose rejection of three dogmas of "classic
neoliberalism":
1. Rejection of neoliberal globalization including, but not limited to, free movement
of labor. Attempt to protect domestic industries via tariff barriers.
2. Rejection of excessive financialization and primacy of financial oligarchy.
Restoration of the status of manufacturing, and "traditional capitalists" status in
comparison with financial oligarchy.
3. Rejection of austerity. An attempt to fight "secular stagnation" via Military
Keysianism.
Trumpism sent "Chicago school" line of thinking to the dustbin of history. It exposed
neoliberal economists as agents of financial oligarchy and "Enemy of the American People"
(famous Trump phase about neoliberal MSM).
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over
the last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have
reigned for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. ...
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook
asset stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and
financialization produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who
serviced them in global cities, alongside gentrification of those cities,
proletarianization and lumpenization of suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization
of employment for the bulk of the middle and working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy
in favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on
top of it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten
far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy.
Indeed, it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the
efficient-markets hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through
mergers and acquisitions in the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification
of the city through attacks on rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor
markets through the idea that unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure
preferences, etc. The mainstream political parties, including those historically
representing the working and middle classes, in thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market
fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a share of the promised gains and thus
embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to abandon and to antagonize a large
section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the
rise of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can
paradoxically simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty
intellectual case made by many mainstream economists for central bank independence,
inflation targeting, debt sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation
and the superiority of private provision of services including for health, education and
welfare, have helped to support antagonism to governmental activity. Within this
perspective, there is limited room for fiscal or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct
governmental role in service provision, even in the form of productivity-enhancing
investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the shipwreck of 2008 that has caused
some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of
the reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his
victory produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism
so much as replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation
without a theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while
indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low
measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity
of living in hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological
and charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics,
were altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics
hardly registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the
U.S.) emerged across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the
analysts' lack of explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such
movements -- the obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people,
inconsistently and unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was
little explored. The failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative
data provided by polling, 'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be
captured through open-eyed experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for
forms of understanding that can comprehend the currents within the human person, and go
beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream social science has offered few if any resources to
understand, let alone challenge, illiberal majoritarianism, now a world-remaking
phenomenon.
"... Coalition attacks on Yemeni markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never call them out for what they do. ..."
There was another Saudi coalition airstrike on a
crowded market in northern Yemen today. Dozens of civilians have been killed and dozens more
injured. Many of the dead and injured were children whose school bus was hit in the attack:
Coalition attacks on Yemeni
markets are unfortunately all too common. The Saudis and their allies know they can strike
civilian targets with impunity because the Western governments that arm and support them never
call them out for what they do. The U.S. continues to arm and refuel coalition planes
despite ample evidence that the coalition has been deliberately attacking civilian targets. At
the very least, the coalition hits civilian targets with such regularity that they are
ignoring whatever
procedures they are supposed to be following to prevent that. The weapons that the U.S.,
Britain, and other arms suppliers provide them are being used to slaughter wedding-goers,
hospital patients, and schoolchildren, and U.S. refueling of coalition planes allows them to
carry out more of these attacks than they otherwise could. Today's attack ranks as one of the
worst.
Saada has come under some of the most intense attacks from the coalition bombing campaign.
The coalition illegally
declared the entire area a military target three years ago, and ever since they have been
blowing up
homes ,
markets ,
schools ,
water treatment systems, and
hospitals without any regard for the innocent civilians that are killed and injured.
The official U.S. line on support for the war is that even more civilians would be killed if
the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition. Our government has never provided any evidence to
support this, and the record shows that civilian casualties from Saudi coalition airstrikes
have
increased over the last year. The Saudis and their allies either don't listen to any of the
advice they're receiving, or they know they won't pay any price for ignoring it. As long as the
U.S. arms and refuels coalition planes while they slaughter Yemeni civilians in attacks like
this one, our government is implicated in the war crimes enabled by our unstinting military
assistance. Congress can and must halt that assistance immediately.
Update: CNN reports on the
aftermath of the airstrike:
The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) said that a hospital it supports in
Saada had received 29 dead bodies of "mainly children" under 15 years of age, and 40 injured,
including 30 children.
"(The hospital) is very busy. They've been receiving wounded and dead since the morning
and it is non-stop ," ICRC head of communications and spokesperson Mirella Hodeib told
CNN.
Second Update: The Associated Press
reports that the death toll stands at 43 with another 63 injured.
Third Update: The death toll has reportedly risen to 50 . 77 were
injured.
Of course I have no right to surprise or shock. They've already targeted hospitals,
foreign doctors and nurses, first responders, wedding parties, and funerals.
School buses.
We used to make movies about killing people who do things like this. Now we help them do
it.
The repetitive frequency and intensity of these attacks on hospitals, schools, markets and
other civilian gatherings, coupled with the indifference of the guilty national governments
and their international enablers, signals that the world and human species is passing through
a mass psychosis. This psychosis is playing itself out at all levels. Fascism, which is very
current as a national psychology, is generally speaking, a coping strategy for dealing with
nasty chaos. This coping strategy is designed around generating even more chaos, since that
is a familiar and therefore more comfortable pattern of behavior; and that does provide a
delusion of stability. A good example would be the sanctions just declared by the Trump
Administration on Iranian commerce. In an intrinsically connected global market, these
sanctions are so thorough that they qualify as a blockade, within a contingency plan for
greater global conflict. But those who destroy hospitals, schools, school buses and public
celebrations are not, otherwise, forward looking nice people. We are descending into a nasty
fascist war psychosis. Just shake it. Live. Long and well.
"even more civilians would be killed if the U.S. weren't supporting the coalition"
If we did not hand them satellite images, did not service, repair and refuel their planes,
and did not sell them the bombs, then they would . kill more civilians how? They could not
even reach their targets, let alone drop explosives they do not have.
What Would Mohammad Do? Buy bombs from the Russians? Who have better quality control and
fewer duds, hence more victims?
What Would Mohammad Do? Get the UAE to hire Blackwater to poison the wells across
Yemen?
How exactly do the profiteers in our country, that get counted out blood money for every
single Yemeni killed, propose that the Saudis and Emiratis would make this worse?
But, good to know that our "smart" and "precise" munitions can still hit a school bus.
Made In America!
The coverage in the media has been predictably cowardly and contemptible in the aftermath of
this story. I read articles from CNN and MSNBC and they were variations on "school bus
bombed", in the passive tense – with no mention of who did it or who is supporting them
in the headline, ad if the bombings were natural disasters.
Fox, predictably, was even worse and led with "Biblical relics endangered by war", which
speaks volumes about the presumed priorities of their viewership.
This, and not anything to do with red meat domestic politics, is the worst media
malpractice of our time. "Stop directly helping the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks drop
bombs on school children" should be the absolute easiest possible moral issue for our media
to take a stand on and yet they treat it like it's radioactive.
Speaking as someone who considers themselves a liberal I am infuriated by the Democrats
response. How can the party leadership not see that if they keep flogging the horse of
Russian trolls and shrugging their shoulders over American given (not sold – *given*)
bombs being dropped on schools and hospitals, no one is ever going to take the supposed
Democratic anti-war platform seriously again. The Republicans can afford to be tarde by
association with these atrocities. The Democrats can't.
I wonder how many Democrats are in the same boat as me right now: I may not like Trump or
the Christian conservatives but fights over the Supreme Court or coal plants or a healthcare
law look terribly petty compared to the apparent decision by Saudi Arabia to kill literally
millions. For the first time in my life I'm seriously wishing there was a third-party
candidate I could support and the congressional elections just so I could send a message on
this.
@Hunter C
Vote Libertarian Party. You won't agree with a lot of their domestic agenda, but they're not
going to win, so it doesn't matter. The noninterventionist foreign policy is your message.
In the wake of President Trump's Helsinki press conference, National Review declared
itself "Against
Moral Equivalence." The magazine claimed that there could be no equating American
meddling in foreign elections with Russian interference in our election because the goal of
the U.S. is to "promote democracy and political liberty and human rights." Though while
America's actions might be noble and have the sanction of heaven, National Review did
concede that its efforts to promote democracy have often been "messy" -- an adjective that the
people of Iraq might find understated.
Like many of Trump's critics, National Review 's embrace of American exceptionalism,
of exempting the United States from the moral laws of the universe because of its commitment to
democracy, is of a type the West has seen before. Swept up in their revolutionary enthusiasm,
the French Jacobins made similar claims. In late 1791, a member of the Assembly, while
agitating for war with Austria, declared that France "had become the foremost people of the
universe, so their conduct must now correspond to their new destiny. As slaves they were bold
and great; are they to be timid and feeble now that they are free?"
Robespierre himself was taken aback by the turn of a domestic revolution into a call for
military adventurism. Of plans to invade Austria and to overthrow "enemies" of liberty in other
nations, he famously remarked, "No one loves armed missionaries." (Robespierre's advice might
have also benefited the American occupiers of Iraq.) The Jacobins' moral preening led France to
declare war on Austria in 1792 and set in motion years of French military adventurism that
devastated much of central Europe. Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became
the legacy of self-declared French exceptionalism.
Hubristic nations that claim a unique place for themselves high atop the moral universe tend
to be imperialistic. This is because claims of national exceptionalism, whether of the French
or American variety, are antinomian, even nihilistic. The "exceptional" ones carve out for
themselves an exemption from the moral law. And prideful claims of moral purity are the
inevitable predicate to imposing one's will upon another. Once leaders assert that their
national soul is of a special kind -- indispensable and not subject to the same rules -- the
road to hell has been paved.
While supporters of American exceptionalism are careful to claim the mantle of Western
civilization, their philosophical orientation in fact amounts to a repudiation of the central
principles of the West and the Constitution.
Arguably, the tradition of the Judeo-Christian West has been special because it has asserted
that human nature is not particularly special. And the Constitution has been exceptional
because it's warned Americans that we are not particularly exceptional.
For example, the legacy of Pauline Christianity, Irving Babbitt tells us, is "the haunting
sense of sin and the stress it lays upon the struggle between the higher and lower self,
between the law of the flesh and the law of the spirit." No person or nation is above this
moral challenge. The uniquely American repudiation of exceptionalism shines brightly in The
Federalist , where no angels can be found among men, and, because no one's behavior enjoys
the sanction of heaven, extensive checks are placed upon people's ability to impose their wills
upon others. The foreign policy that flowed out of the worldview of the Framers was that of
George Washington, a strong recommendation against hubris and foreign meddling.
These historical and cultural warnings about human nature have since been swept away by
acolytes of American exceptionalism. Our moral superiority, they claim, makes us Masters of the
Universe, not careful and mindful custodians of our own fallen nature. We have been put on
earth to judge other nations, not to be judged. Tossing the legacy of the Framers onto the ash
heap of history, George W. Bush declared in his Second Inaugural Address
that our exceptionalism creates an obligation to promote democracy "in every nation and
culture." In this endeavor, Bush pronounced, the United States enjoys the sanction of heaven,
as "history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty." Bush's
Second Inaugural was probably better in the original French.
Now, the puffed-up American establishment, many of whom supported the bloody Iraq war, drip
with moral condescension as they brand Vladimir Putin an existential outlaw and the enemy of
democracy, foreclosing the possibility of common ground with Russia on nuclear weapons, China,
terrorism, and other issues that matter to the national security of the United States. That
Washington has meddled in countless nations' affairs from Iraq to Russia -- and caused untold
damage -- is of no account to the establishment. Rules do not apply to democracy promoters.
After the Iraq war, we should have reconsidered our hubristic American exceptionalism. One
can take pride in the American tradition without laying claim to a uniquely beautiful national
soul that is exempt from the laws of nature and of nature's God. The hysterical reaction to
Trump's truthful admission that the United States too has made mistakes in its relationship
with Russia is a sign that American exceptionalism is still in full flower among elites.
Without the return of a certain humility, there will be more military adventures abroad and
political strife at home.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study
of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.11 Responses to America the
Unexceptional
I agree with the sentiment but the facts show we've always been this way. Historically
speaking our hubris didn't start with George W. Bush. We had quite the exceptionalist spirt
with "Manifest Destiny" back in the 19th century. And indeed it took a bit of hubris to
declare independence from Britain.
Dr. Smith wrote his PhD dissertation in political philosophy on a critique of romanticism in
political thinking. However, in the above article he somehow believes America is unexceptional
for having exempted itself from God's laws and natural law. But what if American policy makers
acted out of political necessity and realism, not "hubris" or un-humility? I might agree with
Smith about using "democracy building" as a pretense for military intervention. But does Smith
take what US presidents and congressmen say at face value? What if US intervention in Iraq had
to do with trying to balance power between Iraq and Iran, or stop Islamic expansionism from
pushing into Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states? Moralism can be just as dangerous as democracy
building in foreign affairs.
We did renounce exceptionalism and imperialism after WW1. Wilson's pet agencies faded out and
we focused internally. We remained non-interventionist until 1946 when the Wilsonians snatched
power again.
We should figure out why and how the bureaucracy and media gave up Empire in the early '20s.
Obviously the people were tired, just as they are now, but the people are irrelevant.
Something changed in the power structure. What was it? Can we help it to happen again?
The writer in question of the referenced piece at National Review, Jimmy Quinn, is a
20something college intern, proving they aren't even interested in hiring newer young
conservatives at NRO who don't just mindlessly repeat the neoconservative line on "American
exceptionalism". They are long past their days as a serious magazine. If not by ideology, just
by having a more interesting collection of writers, I'd say even the Weekly Standard is now a
better magazine than National Review. It's become like the boring Pravda rulebook for Official
Conservatism™ in America.
Well done, Mr. Smith. Our hubris blinds this nation to the pain it inflicts in other lands. I
reflect again and again on these words from the hymn (tune Finlandia):
This is my song, oh God of all the nations,
a song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is;
here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
but other hearts in other lands are beating
with hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.
My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
and sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine.
But other lands have sunlight too and clover,
and skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
This is my song, thou God of all the nations;
a song of peace for their land and for mine.
When nations rage, and fears erupt coercive,
The drumbeats sound, invoking pious cause.
My neighbors rise, their stalwart hearts they offer,
The gavels drop, suspending rights and laws.
While others wield their swords with blind devotion;
For peace I'll stand, my true and steadfast cause.
We would be one as now we join in singing,
Our hymn of love, to pledge ourselves anew.
To that high cause of greater understanding
Of who we are, and what in us is true.
We would be one in loving and forgiving,
with hopes and dreams as true and high as thine.
C'mon people, it's right to separate yourselves from the bombast and violent meddling we've
done all over the world, but let's not get carried away with this ridiculous "we're just like
any other bully" mentality.
The exceptionalism is in the elevation of individual human freedom as a foundational
principle. We declared it, the French declared it, and it remains a beacon for many others, no
matter how poorly we've observed it from time to time.
"Military imperialism abroad and guillotines at home became the legacy of self-declared
French exceptionalism." No, that was the paroxysm of revolution, one that the U,S. fortunately
avoided.
The real legacy was the sweeping away of monarchy across the continent, despite the irony of
Napoleon making himself emperor.
For all our imperialism, did we treat western Europe the same as Stalin treated eastern
Europe?
Is it just an accident of history that the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, former
British colonies all, lead the world in the protection of individual human rights? You can draw
a line, crooked though it may be, from those countries right back to the Magna Carta.
Yes, we had slavery, a legacy of our status as an agricultural colony, but the British,
French, and Americans all abolished it because it couldn't square with our declared
principles.
We may forget why we are exceptional but our immigration pressure shows that the the rest of
the world hasn't.
Re: The Jacobins' moral preening led France to declare war on Austria in 1792
It wasn't just the Jacobins: pretty much everyone wanted war. The royalists hoped that
foreign intervention would restore Louis XVI as an absolute monarch. The moderates wanted to
consolidate the gains of the Revolution and deflect public anger at its economic failings. The
radicals, as noted, looked to evangelize Europe with the Rights of Man. And the foreign powers
wanted to crush the Revolution lest its ideals take root in their own country -- and help
themselves to this or that bit of France's empire.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown University. Find him on Twitter ..."
Iranians: Not Pining for American InterventionSome seem to think they can't wait
for us to overthrow their government. Nothing could be further from the truth. By
Akhilesh Pillalamarri
•
August 6, 2018
Ryan
Rodrick Beiler/Shutterstock Defense hawks in Washington think the people of Iran are
waiting with bated breath for the regime in Tehran to collapse and wouldn't mind a little
American help along the way -- whether through direct military intervention, or "naturally" as
the result of grassroots
protests , "with Washington backing," of course.
There is no greater fallacy. While the people of Iran are undoubtedly frustrated with their
government, they are not on the
cusp of changing it, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to believe . In fact, any attempt
by outside actors to change the regime would cause the people of Iran to unify around the
clerics. We would end up deflating the reformist party and enabling the hardliners who have
consistently warned their people that we can't be trusted.
This ongoing mind reading of the Iranian people is pure Washington hokum with no basis in
reality.
After witnessing the debacles of our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, who can
blame the people of Iran for not wanting direct American military aid? As Damon Linker
points out in
The Week , our attitude towards unsavory regimes in other nations is all too often
informed by "an incorrigible optimism about the benefits of change and consequent refusal to
entertain the possibility that a bad situation might be made even worse by overturning it."
Almost nobody in Iran supports the main group pushing for Western-backed regime change, the
National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI). That organization is widely seen as a
front for
the despised Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK), an Iranian Marxist group that fought against the late
Shah, was virulently anti-American, and worked with Saddam Hussein to
invade Iran during the Iran-Iraq War before rebranding itself as a democratic opposition
group.
Despite this being common knowledge among unbiased observers, figures like National Security
Advisor John Bolton
continue to promote it as an alternative for Iran.
In actuality, despite the desire among a sizable segment of Iranians -- especially young
people in Tehran and other large cities -- for a pro-Western government, there is no
well-organized, secular, democratic alternative waiting to take charge. Any organization that
bills itself as such is following in the deceitful footsteps of Ahmed
Chalabi , the Iraqi leader-in-exile who sold himself in the United States as the Iraqi
George Washington, but failed to garner any political support after the fall of Saddam
Hussein.
History shows us that there is no quicker way for a leader or group to lose legitimacy than
by seeking the aid of a foreign power. King Louis XVI of France managed to hold on to his
throne for a few years after the storming of the Bastille, but was deposed after fleeing Paris
and seeking the aid of France's enemies. Iranians, like Americans, value liberty in the sense
of national self-determination: they would rather be under-served by their own leaders than by
well-meaning foreigners or those perceived to be puppets.
After wasting almost two decades of blood and treasure trying to rebuild countries with
weaker national identities than Iran -- like Iraq -- U.S. policymakers would have to be
detached from reality to believe that anything good could come of intervention in Iranian
affairs.
The people of Iran have a long historical memory: those who sold out their nation to foreign
powers, even in opposition to tyranny, have garnered not thanks but the collective hatred of
the Iranian people. From the actions
of the satrap Bessus who killed the last Achaemenid Persian king Darius III to curry favor with
Alexander the Great, to the slaying of the last pre-Islamic Persian ruler Yazdegerd III by a
local ruler to appease the invading Arabs, Iranians have long looked askance at collaboration
with foreigners. Numerous 19th-century Qajar rulers failed to implement their policies because
they were thought to be too close to the goals of the imperial powers of Russia or Britain. And
the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, never escaped the perception that his ascent to power in
1953 was enabled by British and American intelligence agencies, regardless of his own
self-portrayal as a nationalist.
Most Iranians, no matter how much they oppose their current government and politics, would
not support an invasion of their own country, let alone the peaceful ascendancy of groups
believed to serve interests other than theirs: it is a matter
of pride and honor.
It is true that Iran has been racked by protests throughout the past year, such as January's
multi-city demonstrations and the closure of the Grand Bazaar in Tehran in June. But those were
spontaneous actions resulting from blue-collar frustrations with the economy and are unlikely
to lead to an outcome favorable to American interests.
If our pressure on Iran leads to regime change, the most likely alternative is
probably a military junta led by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a
shift away from the semi-civilian government that Iran now enjoys. The IRGC has been infringing
on our geopolitical interests throughout the Middle East for decades and could take an even
harder anti-American line than the current government. When confronted with invaders and
foreign pressure, Iranians have always rallied around military strongmen, such as Nader Shah in
the early 18th century, who threw out the invading Afghans, and Reza Shah in the early 20th
century, who saved
Iran from disintegration after World War I.
Washington should be careful what it wishes for. We should not delude ourselves into
thinking that the people of Iran are waiting for our support and intervention. The truth is
much darker.
Akhilesh "Akhi" Pillalamarri is a fellow at Defense Priorities. An international
relations analyst, editor, and writer, he studied international security at Georgetown
University. Find him on Twitter@akhipill.
The people of Iran instinctively love America because everyone in the world loves America.
This is true regardless of the fact that we have never done anything whatsoever to merit
their love. We have never given them assistance when they had an earthquake, we won't let
them get spare parts for passenger airlines causing air travel to be unsafe. We hinder
civilian projects but since we are narcissists, we simply believe that everyone loves us
because of our intrinsically great qualities.
Really, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Trump is very unpopular as our own
President. But if a foreign power were to attempt to depose him and install a new government,
there would be massive popular resistance to that here. Why the neocons think it would be
different in any other country eludes me.
Nothing can unite even a fractiously divided nation more readily than foreign
interference.
US policy since Libya and Syria has been "regime destruction", with not even token
commitments to pretend "nation building". The miscalculation continues: if the US manages to
turn Iran into a "failed to comply" state without effective governance, there will be several
factions with professional military capabilities – especially given the IRGC
"deterrent" of connections and alliances throughout the Middle East – that can continue
where our pathological US "maglinity" plans to stop.
There are no "wars of choice". The only choice the US gets is whether to start an
unnecessary war, from then on our victims get a say, eventually. We are still trapped in
Eisenhower's grandstanding "meddling" in Iranian elections, after all .
Everyone knows that Iranians are not begging for "liberation", just as everyone with the
brains God gave my youngest cat knew damn well that American boots would not transform Iraq
into a western democracy, that American bombs would ruin Libya and American bombs are used
for genocide in Yemen.
The Trump Administration is looking for an excuse to attack. Just as the Bush
Administration shed crocodile tears over the poor Iraqis, and Obama cynically exploited the
fate of Libyans.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.' ..."
"... What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in return. ..."
"... The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles, relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in various stages of economic decline. ..."
"... Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. ..."
"... Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their donor base. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class control -- neoliberalism, is something else. ..."
"... Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And they were fascists. ..."
"... As political scientist Thomas Ferguson has been arguing for decades and Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls the politics. ..."
"... The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing. ..."
"... Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book ..."
The election of Donald Trump fractured the American Left. The abandonment of class analysis
in response to Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism left identity politics to fill the void. This
has facilitated the rise of neoliberal nationalism, an embrace of the national security state
combined with neoliberal economic analysis put forward as a liberal / Left response to Mr.
Trump's program. The result has been profoundly reactionary.
What had been unfocused consensus around issues of economic justice and ending militarism
has been sharpened into a political program. A nascent, self-styled socialist movement is
pushing domestic issues like single payer health care, strengthening the social safety net and
reversing wildly unbalanced income and wealth distribution, forward. Left unaddressed is how
this program will move forward without a revolutionary movement to act against countervailing
forces.
As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at
engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of
Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's
racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of
oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.'
This points to the most potent fracture on the Left, the question of which is the more
effective reactionary force, the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism or Mr. Trump's racialized
version? As self-evident as the answer apparently is to the liberal / Left, it is only so
through abandonment of class analysis. Race, gender and immigration status are either subsets
of class or the concept loses meaning.
By way of the reform Democrat's analysis , it was the shift of
working class voters from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 that swung the election
in Mr. Trump's favor. To the extent that race was a factor, the finger points up the class
structure, not down. This difference is crucial when it comes to the much-abused 'white
working-class' explanation of Mr. Trump's victory.
What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis
since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three
decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of
organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique
capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in
return.
The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles,
relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by
national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the
rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in
various stages of economic decline.
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling class
ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they are
factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can ] accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power,
and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique
behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of
neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
Within the frame of identity politics rich and bourgeois blacks, women and immigrants have
the same travails as their poor and working-class compatriots. Ben Carson (black), Melania
Trump (female) and Melania Trump (immigrant) fit this taxonomy. For them racism, misogyny and
xenophobia are forms of social violence. But they aren't fundamental determinants of how they
live. The same can't be said for those brutalized by four decades of neoliberalism
The common bond here is a class war launched from above that has uprooted, displaced and
immiserated a large and growing proportion of the peoples of the West. This experience cuts
across race, gender and nationality making them a subset of class. If these problems are
rectified at the level of class, they will be rectified within the categories of race, gender
and nationality. Otherwise, they won't be rectified.
Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to
economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism
without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own
history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their
donor base.
Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that
he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of
neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the
premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class
control -- neoliberalism, is something else.
Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the
framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only
widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans
in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put
differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And
they were fascists.
More recently, the effort to secure capitalist control has been led by [neo]liberal
Democrats using Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements. So that
identity warriors might understand the implications, this control limits the ability of
governments to rectify race and gender bias because supranational adjudication can overrule
them.
So, is race and / or gender repression any less repressive because capitalists control the
levers? Colonial slave-masters certainly thought so. The people who own sweatshops probably
think so. Most slumlords probably think so. Employers who steal wages probably think so. The
people who own for-profit prisons probably think so. But these aren't 'real' repression, are
they? Where's the animosity?
As political scientist Thomas Ferguson
has been arguing for decades and
Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold
sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional
committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls
the politics.
The liberal explanation for this is 'political culture.' The liberal solution is to change
the political culture without changing the economic relations that drive the culture. This is
also the frame of identity politics. The presence of a desperate and destitute underclass
lowers working class wages (raising profits), but ending racism is a matter of changing
minds?
This history holds an important lesson for today's nascent socialists. The domestic programs
recently put forward, as reasonable and potentially useful as they are, resemble FDR's effort
to save capitalism, not end it. The time to implement these programs was when Wall Street was
flat on its back, when it could have been more. This is the tragedy of betrayal by Barack Obama
his voters.
Despite the capitalist rhetoric at the time, the New Deal wasn't 'socialism' because it
never changed control over the means of production, over American political economy. Internal
class differences were reduced through redistribution, but brutal and ruthless imperialism
proceeded apace overseas.
The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with
rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the
architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he
pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing.
Otherwise, the rich have assigned the opining classes the task of defending their realm.
Step 1: divide the bourgeois into competing factions. Step 2: posit great differences between
them that are tightly circumscribed to prevent history from inconveniently intruding. Step 3:
turn these great differences into moral absolutes so that they can't be reconciled within the
terms given. Step 4: pose a rigged electoral process as the only pathway to political
resolution. Step 5: collect profits and repeat. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His bookZen Economicsis
published by CounterPunch Books.
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
In February, the Pentagon announced
a $950 million no-bid contract to REAN Cloud, LLC for the migration of legacy systems to the
cloud. As an Amazon Web Services consulting partner and reseller, REAN Cloud was likely favored
due to Amazon's recent $600 million cloud project for the Central Intelligence Agency. Creating
an unusually large contract with little oversight or competition led to ample criticism of the
Pentagon, as lawmakers demanded an explanation from DoD. In response to the brouhaha, the
Pentagon announced in early March that the maximum value of the contract would be
reduced from $950 million to $65 million.
As it turned out, though, even the Pentagon wasn't exactly sure how to apply the murky
requirements of OTA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in May that the REAN contract did not
accord with federal law, in that REAN was granted an award without even really considering
going through a competitive bidding process. "Vague and attenuated" statements from the
Pentagon to potential bidders in the beginning of the process ensured that the process would
not be an open one. After the cancellation of the REAN deal, the Pentagon finally seems open to
competitive bidding for cloud migration.
Unfortunately, OTA is still alive and well across the DoD procurement process. In June, the
Defense Information Systems Agency
joined the growing list of agencies dabbling in OTA, noting that "many of the companies
we're dealing with are small start-ups." But as the REAN Cloud case shows, many companies
appear "small" but have far larger partners. According to statistics in the
Federal News Radio report , "Only $7.4 billion of the nearly $21 billion went to
nontraditional companies." The problem is created in part by the use of consortiums, which are
comprised of multiple companies, which vary in size. The consortium can decide how money is
allocated for an award, allowing larger businesses to benefit disproportionately out of sight
of the DoD and taxpayers.
Congress has finally started to demand more accountability for OTAs. The 2019 National
Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress requires more data
reporting and analysis by acquisition officials. But far more work remains.
Lawmakers should set stricter limits on when it's okay to eschew competitive bidding, and
lower the threshold for requiring congressional notification (currently set at $500 million).
Allowing tens of billions of dollars to be spent behind the backs of taxpayers without a
bidding process cannot continue.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
We have lost some of our democratic habits -- indeed, in many ways we are losing
our very cohesion as a society. But I frame the question very differently.
I know a bunch of Trump supporters. Some of them are intellectuals who write for places like
TAC . But most are not. Neither are any of them raving bigots or knuckle-dragging
neanderthals, and all of them read the news, though with vastly less obsessiveness than people
who work in the business.
None of them "like" things like "unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure" or collusion with foreign governments. Some of them minimize
some of these things at least some of the time -- and I myself have been known to derive a kind
of pleasure from the absurdity of a figure like Mooch. But this isn't what the people who I
know who voted Trump voted for , nor is it why they continue to be happy with their
vote -- which, however unhappy they are with how the administration is conducting itself, most
of them still are.
Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the
election.
"They are, however, people who have lost trust in the individuals and institutions who are
most alarmed about Trump: the political establishment, the press, etc. And so, on a relative
basis, they'd rather continue to put their trust in Trump."
That last line does not follow .We have lost trust in all of the others; so would rather
see what Trump does; not that we have any trust in him to do the right thing
THAT would be ridiculous; especially after the last six months.
Hmmm. Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't help but read
that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites are capable
of governing. As for the American people taking a turn to authoritarianism. This is possible,
after all, our Federal government has spent most of the last century increasing their control
over many of the aspects of our lives and stretching the limits of the Constitution beyond
any recognition. We have been prepared to accept authoritarianism. Increasingly we have had
an authoritarian presidency that surveils its own people and has usurped regulatory and
warmaking authority from the Congress. The Federal government has created, out of whole
cloth, a role for itself in public education. Do not blame the populace for being what the
elite has spent a century shaping them to be.
I am convinced that the saber rattling and fear-mongering concerning Korea, Iran, and Russia
are not happening because we have any reason to be particularly concerned about these
countries or because they threaten our interests. No, this is the way a corrupt and
ineffective regime distracts its citizens from its own failings. Lets be clear, this would be
happening even if She-who-shall-not-be-named had one the Presidency.
Whatever happened to "trust but verify"?
OK, a bunch of people did the political equivalent of a Hail Mary play in voting for Trump.
But now that the ball has not only fallen short but gone way out of bounds and beaned some
spectators in the stands shouldn't they be revoking that trust and casting around for someone
else to represent them? Why stick with a sinking ship?
There is strong evidence to suggest that one factor in Trump's victory was distrust of US
foreign policy. The link above is to an article about exit polls showing Trump won the
veteran's vote 2:1 over Hillary Clinton.
People don't regret their votes for Trump because if they had voted for Clinton, they or
their loved ones would be coming home in body bags–or minus body parts.
As bad as Trump is, his foreign policy instincts are less hawkish than
Clinton's–witness his decision to end the CIA funding of Syrian insurgents.
Trump's behavior is certainly "unpresidential" and chaotic. It is also less horrible than
war by many orders of magnitude.
"The politically relevant, and profoundly disturbing, fact is precisely the opposite of the
conventional wisdom: After six months of unremitting chaos, lies, ignorance, trash-talking
vulgarity, legislative failure, and credible evidence of a desire to collude with a hostile
foreign government to subvert an American election, President Trump's approval rating is
astonishingly high -- with something between one-third and two-fifths of the American people
apparently liking what they see and hear from the White House"
But George W Bush at his nadir averaged 26% approval, and that's seven years in, during an
epic economic collapse, a catastrophic war, and a host of other disasters. Trump is not THAT
far away from that average.
There is simply a line beyond which a president can't decline unless he murders and eats a
puppy in public, and I see no reason to presume that we can judge that Trump hit his bottom
six months in, when the economy is decent and no non-self inflicted crisis looming.
I'd also add that while all your friends have different reasons to stay aboard the Trump
train, all of them sound like high information, fairly ideological voters. This is probably
not the profile of Trump voters set to vote for The Rock in 2020
Well, when a building is rotten to the core, the only thing you can do is raze it to the
ground to start rebuilding. Our government has long passed its sell-by date. Really,
expecting a political solution to arise from a government controlled system such as ours does
not border on insanity – it completely crosses that border in leaves it miles in the
dust. Witness our insane Congress voting by a 98% margin to inflict sanctions based upon
absolute crock. But then the US has never let reality get in the way of statesmenshowmanship.
We get what we deserve, good and hard.
You're OK until the last line. "And populism by its very nature cannot build institutions,
cannot govern "
You're still using the Deepstate definition of populism. In fact populists want only one
thing: We think the government of THIS country should serve the interests of the people of
THIS country.
It's perfectly possible to govern by this rule. FDR did it magnificently.
Why did it work for FDR? Because he was determined to BREAK the monopolies and forces that
acted contrary to the interests of the people, and because governments BELOW the Federal
level were still strong. When he closed the banks for several months, cities and Chambers of
Commerce jumped in immediately to develop scrip systems.
Thanks to an unbroken series of evil judges and presidents after WW2, local governments
and institutions are dead or dying. Even if a competent and determined populist tried to
close down banks or Amazon or the "health" insurance system, there would be no organized way
to replace them.
What exactly did these people think a Clinton administration would do? What nightmarish
dystopia did they see coming around the bend? And what do you think -- were their perceptions
of America's future under a Clinton administration accurate, or at least close to the mark?
And if so, why?
Also, I get that people have lost trust in mainstream institutions. What makes them think
that Trump is trustworthy in comparison? Why do they have more trust in Trump than in the
institutions? And does that seem reasonable?
I didn't vote for Trump: His rhetorical style turns me cold; I don't like his position on
many issues, or his general governing philosophy, to the extent he can be said to have one.
But, BUT, I sure as Hell did not vote for Hilary Clinton(I voted for Johnson and Weld, who
were obvious non-starters from the word Go. I might possibly have voted for Trump if it had
looked like the election might be close in Illinois, but since the Chicago Machine had
already stolen it for HRC, I could salve my conscience and vote for Johnson.
Clinton was the status quo candidate, and since I did not desire "more of the same",
governmentally, Trump and his circus are preferable to Clinton and whatever cabal she would
have assembled to run the country.
You claim that the elite "inevitably" run the machinery of government, but it's worth
noting that once upon a time in America, most of the people in government were political
appointees who could be sent packing(along with their bosses) by the voters. Nowadays, the
'elite' which runs government is dug in pretty much permanently, and the same people will be,
in practice, running the government no matter who wins the next election, or the one after
that
Hilary Clinton was forthrightly the candidate of the permanent, un-elected bureaucracy,
and Trump, well, didn't seem to be. The choice was between Trump, whose actual position on
the size of government was not clear, and Hilary Clinton who was actually promising to make
government bigger, more centralized, more expensive and less responsive. I'm not sorry Trump
won however distasteful he and his henchmen are to me.
I too had a friend who was a huge Ron Paul supporter who not only backed Trump, but became a
major apologist for him ever since. The man ran two back to back campaigns in Georgia for US
Senate, the Ron Paul mold. Now, no on his original team will give him the time of day. Those
who tried to get some sense into him, have been closed off.
As a libertarian, I am no more afraid of the left or the right. In fact, listening to the
right rant about the left yields a lot of ignorance, disinformation and paranoia: stock in
trade for right wing propaganda. But I am disturbed when people spend years fighting for
liberty suddenly joined Cult 45 that has no sense of liberty Ron Paul or his followers would
recognize.
But Trump fit the bankrupt GOP. Lest we forget, those 49 GOP Senators who voted for
"skinny repeal" (even the name is joke!) never gave a moment's consideration to the bill
written by Rand Paul that covers the conservative attributes of free markets and
self-determination. Lest we also forget that Rand is not only one of the few legit
conservatives, but a doctor and the son of doctor or former Congressman. Those credentials
alone would have been enough if GOP was actually interested being conservative. Apparently,
Trumpism is what the GOP is about and 49 of them proved it.
I think that you have identified a problem that transcends Trump and his opponents. Vitriolic
partisanship is one thing. At various points in our history, we have had some nasty spells of
polarization. The deeper problem that the institutions of public life are now losing their
very legitimacy.
Legitimacy is something deeper than mere approval. It relies upon the unspoken acceptance
of political and institutional norms.
We are clearly in the process of publicly reevaluating and even rejecting these norms. The
birthers questioning Obama's background and "not my president" folks do not view their
oppponents as legitimate, if mistaken. In the case of Trump and the radical left, they
contest the legitimacy of the other side even participating in the process, a process by the
way to which they owe no fealty.
Nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed, one, by making voting mandatory, and two,
by having top two vote getters in primary face each other in the general.
We'd have a moderate politics with elected officials clustering slightly right and left of
the center.
Speaking as a Commie Pinko Red, I still prefer Trump as President over Clinton, precisely
because he is doing so much to undermine America's "leadership" in world affairs. He's still
a murderous imperialist, maybe even just as much as she would have been, but there's just so
much more damage that she could have done making bi-partisan deals with the GOP for the
benefit of Wall Street and the insurance industry.
The movement against GOPcare – Trumpcare wasn't really a fair name for the wet
dreams of Paul Ryan and Conservative, Inc. – probably couldn't have been so effective
or flew under the radar of the establishment tools running the Democratic Party and its media
mouthpieces if a Democrat was in the White House and the various beltway "movement" honchos
had had their precious seat at the table where they could have rolled over for the Democratic
president of the moment.
The biggest problem is what comes after Trump for the GOP?
He's kicked off a process for the GOP that will be very difficult to manage going forward.
He showed that outright racism, sexism, continuous lying, even treasonous collusion with
Russia to subvert our election is just fine with the Republican Party. How does the GOP sell
family values to their 'base' after they all lined up with Donald j Trump, serial
wife-cheater and money-launderer?
It will be hard for anyone to forget that any of this happened.
Consider this: 8 years of W Bush yielded the first black President – It really could
not have happened if W hadn't burned the house down. What comes after Trump?
I'm a very middle-class worker in the IT sector where most of my coworkers have been
sensible, but my weekend hobby of playing music has put me in contact (largely via Facebook)
with many Trump supporters who do happen to be knuckle-dragging neanderthals. They generally
don't read; their "news" comes from partisan demagogues on the radio or TV. If I give one the
benefit of the doubt and share an article from, say, The American Conservative -- "The
Madness of King Donald" was a favorite -- it's been all too common to receive a
childish/hate-filled meme in response. Bigots are legion: I've unfriended the raving variety,
and unfollowed the milder dog-whistlers. These deplorables have in fact been emboldened by
the current POTUS.
But I get your point. I abhor the current duopoly, but it could be fixed if thinking
citizens wanted to put in some effort. So, it's depressing in a different kind of way that so
many thoughtful and well-read Americans are so cynical about state of US politics that they
are fine with Trump wrecking it.
"Rather, the commonality among those who voted for Trump is their conviction that the
Democratic party's leadership is utterly bankrupt, and, to one degree or another, so is the
Republican leadership. And that assessment hasn't changed one iota since the election."
They are people who were full of it beforehand, and as the evidence rolls in, they just
sink deeper into lies.
Linker's quote "a desire to collude" you reference later as "collusion". The first instance
is an attempt to broaden the charge from collusion, the second instance is a (sloppy?) change
in language.
@Will Harrington, "Populism can not govern or build institutions by its very nature? I can't
help but read that as saying the plebeians are so incompetent and stupid that only the elites
are capable of governing."
I read that statement as "Once you are governing, once you are the one(s) in a position of
power, then by definition you have become 'the elite' and are no longer 'a plebeian'".
Populists, by definition, are the people who call for the tearing down of institutions that
make up the status-quo, and elites, by definition, are the people who build and maintain
status-quo institutions. At least in my eyes, "being a populist" and "governing institutions"
are mutually exclusive.
Since the conservative party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower was invaded by the right
wingers and became the party of Jefferson Davis and John Wilkes Booth, the goal has been to
tarnish all concept of a functioning a democracy and a government is built to work for the
people, of the people, and by the people. The right wing main tactic is lies and just get
people riled up so that they don't realize and oblivious to the fact that America has slipped
from capitalism to corporatism; from a capitalist democracy to a caste based plutocracy run
for the sole benefit of the oligarchs who bought this country.
Don Trump is the embodiment and distillation of the right winger and their economic and
social cultural policies. He is not an alternative or antidote to the Republicans or
Democrats.
" Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government is in chaos and that Trump is not bringing the change he hoped for. But he doesn't
regret his vote, and he prefers the chaos of Trump to business-as-usual under either the
Democrats or the Republicans. And if Trump winds up discrediting the Federal government
generally, that's fine with him."
I didn't vote this election because I didn't like either candidate. I had been promoting
'America First' as a rallying cry for a candidate for years but Trump wasnt exactly the kind
of leader I had in mind for it.
But I'm with the guy above -- if chaos will bust up the musical chair dual monarchies of the
dems and repubs and the corrupt status quo government bring it on.
A somewhat related question, Noah: If you had been a young man living in China on August 1,
1927, do you think you would have joined the People's Liberation Army?
Originally I wanted to sit out this past election but gave in to peer pressure. And I regret
this. Trump? Clinton? Johnson? Stein? All were mediocre. Clinton/Trump were the two worst
candidates that the "major" parties have ever produced in my lifetime. It was with fear and
trepidation that I voted for Trump, notwithstanding that I fundamentally agreed with him on
the issues of immigration and the need for a reduced American role in global affairs. In the
end, I rationalized this (wasted) vote based upon the notion that not only had his opponent
committed a felony (detouring government emails) but also because (as others have pointed
out) she was the candidate of the status quo, the "permanent bureaucracy", Big Finance etc.
etc. The fact that Trump actually won surprised me, but only moderately, because as terrible
a candidate as he was, his opponent was even worse.
What has transpired since his election comes as no surprise. Had Clinton been elected
conditions would have only been mirror imaged, such being the state of things in this
once-great republic. I continue to maintain that the two-party system is archaic and has to
go. Whether a multi-party system would be better, I don't know. Perhaps we have reached a
point where the country is simply ungovernable. Perhaps more responsibility should be
returned to state and local government (Jefferson would have approved). Again, I don't
know.
What I do know is that the current system is dysfunctional.
And that, my friends, is why we have a real estate/TV personality as President.
i am neither an establishment voter, or a member of the media/press. i am deeply worried
where the man (trump) is taking this nation. the gop is complicit in this chaos as they see
trump as a rubber stamp for their plutocratic agenda. i don't know what it will take to right
the ship of state
I don't regret my vote. And I ave had issues with my choice before and after the election.
The sky is not even close to falling as predicted. And the democracy you claim is at threat
may very well be, but it's from the current executive. And nothing thus far suggests that it
will.
I m not going to dismiss the caterwauling liberals have been making since the campaign or
the election as major distraction to governance.
And by the way there remain not a twiddle's evidence that the WH prior to the election
colluded to undermine the US in any manner. It's time to cease throwing that out as sauce for
the goose.
I think I agree with all four of your "freinds". I am very fond of the establishment, they
have their place. What they provide in cohesion, stability and continuity is valuable to the
state. But they appear to be want for any level of substance, depth thereof or moral
consistency (if any at all). The double standards they hold themselves, their donors and
connections on issues and accountability is unsustainable in a democracy as I think you
understand it.
When I was laid out in the ER, I found myself wrestling with my own position on
healthcare. The temptations are great to bend the guide as to my own conditions -- but I
don't think I could so with a clear conscience. I am nor sot sure that what we haven't lost
is a sense of conscience -- that sense that truth overrides immediate gain. I don't think the
US can survive as the US if the leadership is bent on holding themselves to a standard not
available to the country's citizens.
"Is he happy with Trump? No -- he's especially unhappy with the number of Goldman bankers
Trump appointed to senior economic posts, but more generally he acknowledges that the
government . . ."
And the discredited notions that
1. the rich know how to run an economy effectively and
2. that a rise in the market is a sign of economic health.
Pear Conference captures perfectly the 'thinking' i have heard from more than one Trump
voter. This is 'reasoning'?
If there is one system in America that needs blowing up to start over it might be our
education system. I am generally supportive of public ed, and i am impressed by some of the
commitment and inventiveness i see among the proposers of various alternatives to public ed.
So, some folks are trying, even sometimes succeeding, but we have managed to arrive at a
point in our culture where we have elected a President whose election success depended more
than anything else on a public who have lost the ability to think critically. (if they ever
had it, of course)
Yes I know the other one got more votes, by a lot. And i know that this other candidate was
oddly not at all an attractive alternative. I know all that, but still, a huge fraction of
the voting population–a fraction large enough to make themselves now THE base the
government is playing to–is a group who could not/would not see this con-job coming?
There was every opportunity to use actual logic and facts to reach a voting decision, but
these millions of voters chose instead to go with various variations on the theme of 'they
all stink, so i'm using my vote to poke a stick in their eyes." Or, as Pear satirized, "I
hate/mistrust the elites and they like almost anybody else other than my guy, so I'm gonna
turn my country over to the most vulgar non-elite pig the system can come up with."
There is talk now about the damage he can do to American politics and sense of community, but
I think he may be more symptom than cause. We don't value the things we thought were a
standard part of the American process: truthfulness, kindness, authenticity, devotion to the
common good. We value, it turns out, showmanship, machismo, crass shows of wealth and power,
and ..I can't go on.
I'm not sure how we got here, but I know the institutions held in high regard on this site,
such as church, and some factors we all put our faith in such as increasing levels of
education, turn out not to matter so much as we had thought. It is going to take some hard
work and more than a little time to recover from this sickness in the country's soul.
"Trump supporters are just like people who are outraged by something and show it by rioting
and burning down their own neighborhoods." – Greg in PDX
The antifas rioting and destroying in Portland also got very violent when some old folks
held a peaceful rally for Trump there.
Oh, sorry. I forgot that when "progressives" disagree with someone, they consider that
merely disagreeing with them constitutes "violence" against their "safe space" and they are
compelled to go out and punch or shoot people.
No reason why populism couldn't govern. Huey Long was a damn effective governor of Louisiana.
Send the whole Acela Corridor élite to Saddam's woodchipper and the country would
noodle along just fine. I'm not for state violence, and yet the fantasy gives me a
frisson. Forgive me, a sinner.
Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship
of this vexing 19th Century philosopher?Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between
libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a limb-flailing rave. Writers
are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles
during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has
now entered the party. Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.
David Brooks' recent column
is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal
critique of the Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly
choose to start society, he writes: "There never was such a thing as an autonomous, free
individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather, individuals emerge out of
families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual
freedom is an artifact of that order."
Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has
plenty of flaws. Yet note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom.
It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is almost obscured. What type of freedom is
dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.
Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as
tracing "the stages in the evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In
Philosophy of Right , he critiqued how Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing
that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.
First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In
the second stage of freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves
with a particular. "I'm going to eat at Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House,
we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer say "nothing can determine where
I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage of
freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior
commitments. "I will eat at Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the
Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception of freedom is dependent upon the
options available to us.
Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by
factors other than ourselves. I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to
get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we choose between. Therefore, the order of
society creates freedom.
So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both
conservative and correct. Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always
been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible positions. Yet we should remember that
conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good reason.
Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his
thought. In History of the Idea of Progress , conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet
wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some sort of liberal, "There is simply no way
of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of obeisance to the
national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of
intensity in the glorification of the state."
Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading. Some
may say that Marxists misread Hegel . Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be
contended with, and anyone who slips in Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is
masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.
Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his
strange statement stands bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between
saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and saying that it's dependent on the nation
state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody helped to
create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody
invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."
Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred
space." Community focused conservatives often use Nisbet's Quest for Community to
criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian
freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the garments of freedom;
but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the
sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."
Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas
similar to those of Hegel and Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where
Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection between Brooks and Hegel is still
inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British
philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into
mainstream punditry. He reads Hegel in a positive light, and in his book The Soul of the
World , he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in the world of persons, bound together
by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in the world of
nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool
of nonsense." Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.
Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative
circles, and in fact Brooks referenced him
just a few days ago . Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through
MacIntyre describe something almost identical to Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's
idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit, which is similar to
waiting for the revolution.
What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books
declaring an end to one form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be
directly referenced by those concerned with working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see
more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for individual freedom.
This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an " Invasion of the Body Snatchers ," or just
beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a conservative
who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell.
Hegel wrote on such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we
might mistakenly spot him everywhere.
Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always
remember Russell Kirk's warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find
nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a conservative only from chance and
expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another question
entirely.
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in
finance.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian
sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league
with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy
fired his first shot on February 9, 1950,
proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing
but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making
accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other
definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit
an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years
simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy
answered that this was "the most positive
proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the
Lavender Scare , which
concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their
perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges.
State legislatures and school boards
mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded.
The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther
King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.
Hegel: The Uninvited Guest at the Conservative Party
Is David Brooks openly flirting with the state-worship of this vexing 19th Century philosopher?
By
James McElroy
•
August 1, 2018
Columnist David Brooks and German Philosopher G.W. Hagel (public domain)
Conservatism has gone from a rigid waltz between libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks to a
limb-flailing rave. Writers are reaching towards the bookshelf for thinkers that will refine and define first principles
during this time of flux. While it's all been great fun, an esteemed but concerning guest has now entered the party.
Increasingly, the right is dancing with G.W. Hegel.
David Brooks' recent
column
is a clear example of a Hegel flirtation. In it, Brooks defines conservatism as an internal critique of the
Enlightenment. Explaining opposition to the idea that individuals randomly choose to start society, he writes: "There
never was such a thing as an autonomous, free individual who could gather with others to create order. Rather,
individuals emerge out of families, communities, faiths, neighborhoods and nations. The order comes first. Individual
freedom is an artifact of that order."
Family and community are the basic building blocks of society and social contract theory has plenty of flaws. Yet
note how Brooks lists the nation state as prior to individual freedom. It's dropped so casually that its radicalism is
almost obscured. What type of freedom is dependent on the nation state? Hegelian.
Hegel argued that freedom was the origin of self-consciousness, and defined his work as tracing "the stages in the
evolution of the idea of the will free in and for itself." In
Philosophy of Right
, he critiqued how
Enlightenment liberals see freedom, arguing that liberal freedom could be divided into three stages.
First comes freedom defined negatively: "Nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner!" In the second stage of
freedom, we want to choose specific states of mind or to concern ourselves with a particular. "I'm going to eat at
Waffle House." But if we choose to eat at Waffle House, we've restricted that first stage of freedom. We can no longer
say "nothing can determine where I'll eat dinner" because we've selected a particular place to eat. So the third stage
of freedom is the ability to change one's mind, to keep options open, regardless of prior commitments. "I will eat at
Waffle House, unless I decide to just drink mini-wines in the Applebee's parking lot." This reveals how our conception
of freedom is dependent upon the options available to us.
Liberal freedom is thus our capacity to enter and exit choices, which are determined by factors other than ourselves.
I did not choose for Waffle House to exist. I did not choose to get hungry at dinner time. We do not choose what we
choose between. Therefore, the order of society creates freedom.
So Brooks is clearly doing the robot with Hegel. But so what? Maybe Hegel's ideas are both conservative and correct.
Maybe conservatives ought to embrace Hegel openly. There have always been right-wing Hegelians. These are defensible
positions. Yet we should remember that conservative bouncers have restricted Hegel from their canon before and for good
reason.
Hegel has always been associated with state worship, and Marxism largely sprang from his thought. In
History of
the Idea of Progress
, conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote that, while many try to disguise Hegel as some
sort of liberal, "There is simply no way of separating him from ideas and expressions which were in themselves acts of
obeisance to the national state and which on the ineffacable record, led others to ever-higher levels of intensity in
the glorification of the state."
Some may disagree with Nisbet's reading.
Some may say that
Marxists misread Hegel
. Yet the link to state worship and Marxism must be contended with, and anyone who slips in
Hegel without acknowledging it -- like Brooks -- is masking the potentially radical nature of his statement.
Strip the Brooks column of the usual sentimental odes to "beautiful communities" and his strange statement stands
bare and a little menacing. There is a world of difference between saying that freedom is dependent upon the family and
saying that it's dependent on the nation state. Brooks sounds an awful lot like former President Barack Obama: "Somebody
helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads
and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."
Yet apparently, as Brooks tells us, big government is no longer a threat to the "sacred space." Community focused
conservatives often use Nisbet's
Quest for Community
to criticize hyper-individualism, yet they should also
remember Nisbet's criticism of Hegelian freedom: "Hegel clothes the absolute state, just as Rousseau had, in the
garments of freedom; but there cannot be the slightest doubt of Hegel's dedicated belief in the absolutism, the
sanctity, even the divinity of the national state's power."
Perhaps I'm reading too much into a throwaway line. After all, Aristotle offered ideas similar to those of Hegel and
Brooks without the taint of state worship -- maybe that's where Brooks is drawing his inspiration from. Yet the connection
between Brooks and Hegel is still inescapable because the former is basing his definition of conservatism from British
philosopher Roger Scruton.
Scruton is one of two modern philosophers currently disseminating Hegelian ideas into mainstream punditry. He reads
Hegel in a positive light, and in his book
The Soul of the World
, he writes: "Freedom is fully realized only in
the world of persons, bound together by rights and duties that are mutually recognized." Yet Scruton does not say "in
the world of nations," and elsewhere warns that Hegel is like a "beautiful oasis around a treacherous pool of nonsense."
Brooks doesn't offer any such qualifications.
Alasdair MacIntyre is the other philosopher who has helped popularize Hegel in conservative circles, and in fact
Brooks referenced him
just a few days
ago
. Conservatives who discuss "liquid modernity" as read through MacIntyre describe something almost identical to
Hegel's Absolute Negativity. And McIntyre's idea of waiting for Benedict is similar to waiting for the Absolute Spirit,
which is similar to waiting for the revolution.
What would a more Hegelian conservatism look like? It's hard to tell. Perhaps we'd see books declaring an end to one
form of consciousness. Perhaps Hegel's ideas on corporations would be directly referenced by those concerned with
working-class alienation. Or perhaps we would see more fishy ideas about the nation state being a prerequisite for
individual freedom.
This isn't about pointing at Brooks and pulling an "
Invasion of
the Body Snatchers
," or just beating up on him for the sake of it. He's merely the most obvious example of a
conservative who's done a waltz with the German philosopher. And even then it's always difficult to tell. Hegel wrote on
such a wide range of topics in such confusing prose, that, like a crazed ex, we might mistakenly spot him everywhere.
Hegel's work is important, and both Scruton and MacIntyre are geniuses. Yet we should always remember Russell Kirk's
warnings that "Marx could draw upon Hegel's magazine; he could find nothing to suit him in Burke" and that Hegel was "a
conservative only from chance and expediency." Hegel is already at the party; whether we want him to stay is another
question entirely.
James McElroy is a New York City-based novelist and essayist, who also works in finance.
"... With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions. ..."
An answer was needed, so one was created: the Russians. As World War II ended with the U.S.
the planet's predominant power, dark forces saw advantage in arousing new
fears . The Soviet Union morphed from a decimated ally in the fight against fascism into a
competitor locked in a titanic struggle with America. How did they get so powerful so quickly?
Nothing could explain it except traitors. Cold War-era America? Or 2018 Trump America? Yes, on
both counts.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply
by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate
were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was
enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February
9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for
the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations
of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to
adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political
rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed
thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist."
Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the
most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used
by others as well: the Lavender
Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who
were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of
McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals"
charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy.
Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded. The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had
communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political
thinking to exclude communism.
Watching sincere people succumb to paranoia again, today, is not something to relish. But
having trained themselves to intellectualize away Hillary Clinton's flaws, as they had with
Obama, about half of America seemed truly gobsmacked when she lost to the antithesis of
everything that she had represented to them. Every
poll (that they read) said she would win. Every
article (that they read) said it too, as did every
person (that they knew). Lacking an explanation for the unexplainable, many advanced
scenarios that would have failed high school civics, claiming that only the popular vote
mattered, or that the archaic
Emoluments Clause prevented Trump from taking office, or that Trump was insane and could be
disposed of under the
25th Amendment .
After a few trial balloons during the primaries under which
Bernie Sanders' visits to Russia and
Jill Stein's attendance at a banquet in Moscow were used to imply disloyalty, the fearful
cry that the Russians meddled in the election morphed into the claim that Trump had worked with
the Russians and/or (fear is flexible) that the Russians had something on Trump. Everyone
learned a new Russian word: kompromat .
Donald Trump became the Manchurian Candidate. That term was taken from a 1959 novel made
into a classic Cold War movie that follows an American soldier brainwashed by communists as
part of a Kremlin plot to gain influence in the Oval Office. A
Google search shows that dozens of news sources -- including
The
New York Times , Vanity
Fair ,
Salon ,
The Washington Post , and, why not, Stormy Daniels' lawyer
Michael Avenatti -- have all claimed that Trump is
a 2018 variant of the Manchurian Candidate,
controlled by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.
The birth moment of Trump as a Russian asset is traceable to MI-6 intelligence
officer-turned-Democratic opposition researcher-turned FBI mole
Christopher Steele , whose "dossier" claimed the existence of the pee tape. Supposedly,
somewhere deep in the Kremlin is a surveillance video made in 2013 of Trump in Moscow's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, watching prostitutes urinate on a bed that the Obamas had once slept in. As
McCarthy did with homosexuality, naughty sex was thrown in to keep the rubes' attention.
No one, not even Steele's alleged informants, has actually seen
the pee tape. It exists in a blurry land of certainty alongside the elevator
tape , alleged video of Trump doing something in an elevator that's so salacious it's been
called "Every Trump Reporter's White Whale." No one knows when the elevator video was made, but
a dossier-length article in
New York magazine posits that Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987.
Suddenly no real evidence is necessary, because it is always right in front of your face.
McCarthy accused
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of being communists or communist stooges over the
"loss" of China in 1949. Trump holds a bizarre press conference in Helsinki and the only
explanation must be that he is a traitor.
Nancy
Pelosi ("President Trump's weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the
Russians have something on the president, personally, financially, or politically") and
Cory Booker ("Trump is acting like he's guilty of something") and
Hillary Clinton ("now we know whose side he plays for") and John Brennan ("rises to and
exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous.
Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin") and
Rachel Maddow ("We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that someone had
ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of
another country rather than our own") and others have said that Trump is
controlled by Russia. As in 1954 when the press provided live TV coverage of McCarthy's
dirty assertions against the Army, the modern media uses each new assertion as "proof" of an
earlier one. Snowballs get bigger rolling downhill.
When assertion is accepted as evidence, it forces the other side to prove a negative to
break free. So until Trump "proves" he is not a Russian stooge, his denials will be seen as
attempts to wiggle out from under evidence that in fact doesn't exist. Who, pundits ask, can
come up with a better explanation for Trump's actions than blackmail, as if that was a
necessary step to clearing his name?
Joe McCarthy's victims faced similar challenges: once labeled a communist or a homosexual,
the onus shifted to them to somehow prove they weren't. Their failure to prove their innocence
became more evidence of their guilt. The Cold War version of this mindset was well illustrated
in movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the classic Twilight Zone episode "
The Monsters Are Due on
Maple Street ." Anyone who questions this must themselves be at best a useful fool, if not
an outright Russia collaborator. (Wrote one
pundit : "They are accessories, before and after the fact, to the hijacking of a democratic
election. So, yes, goddamn them all.") In the McCarthy era, the term was "fellow traveler":
anyone, witting or unwitting, who helped the Russians. Mere skepticism, never mind actual
dissent, is muddled with disloyalty.
Blackmail? Payoffs? Deals? It isn't just the months of Mueller's investigation that have
passed without evidence. The IRS and Treasury have had Trump's tax documents and financials for
decades, even if Rachel Maddow has not. If Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987, or even
2013, he has done it behind the backs of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA. Yet at the same
time, in what history would see as the most out-in-the-open intelligence operation ever, some
claim he asked on TV for his handlers to deliver hacked emails. In TheManchurian
Candidate , the whole thing was at least done in secret as you'd expect.
With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the
equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries
claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against
Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions.
There is no evidence the president is acting on orders from Russia or is under their
influence. None.
As with McCarthy, as in those famous witch trials at Salem, allegations shouldn't be
accepted as truth, though in 2018 even pointing out that basic tenet is blasphemy. The burden
of proof should be on the accusing party, yet the standing narrative in America is that the
Russia story must be assumed plausible, if not true, until proven false. Joe McCarthy tore
America apart for four years under just such standards, until finally public opinion, led by
Edward R. Murrow , a
journalist brave enough to demand answers McCarthy did not have, turned against him. There is no
Edward R. Murrow in 2018.
When asking for proof is seen as disloyal, when demanding evidence after years of
accusations is considered a Big Ask, when a clear answer somehow always needs additional time,
there is more on the line in a democracy than the fate of one man.
Peter Van Buren, a
24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War
: A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .
"... This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think. ..."
"... Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold. ..."
"Vladimir Putin rode a counter-wave of anti-Western nationalism to power in Moscow."
Uh, no. Putin came to power at a time when Russia seemed to be falling apart, quite
literally. There was war in Chechnya, open criminal activity on the streets, and clear social
decay. Putin's popularity begins with his address to the nation after the bombing of the
Moscow metro, promising that the government (which he did not then lead) would chase those
responsible down and kill them, even if that meant chasing them into outhouses. The
relationship between the bombing and Putin's rise is so well-known that the conspiracy
theorists who have Jay Nordlinger's ear over at National Review claim that the bombing was a
set up by Putin's pals in the FSB, precisely to bring Putin to power.
My wife is Russian, from the city of Kazan in the Tatar Republic (part of Russia; it's
complicated), and when we were merely pen pals in 2003 she wrote me what it was like. It was
bad, very bad. At one point her entire neighborhood was placed under curfew on account of
open warfare between criminal gangs. And of course when we visit the cemetery today one sees
the striking spike in tombstones whose date of death is at some point in the mid- to late
90's, when it all seemed to be going to pieces and the government didn't even pay its own
employees for half a year.
Today, by contrast, Russians can walk the streets more or less without fear, count on a
paycheck, read in the news how their country has sent yet another capsule of Western
astronauts to the international space station (because Westerners haven't been able to do
that for the better part of a decade, thanks to Bush and Obama), and even find jobs in a
successful tech sector (Kaspersky, JetBrains, Yandex, the list goes on).
But, hey, if you want to fantasize that Putin's rise is thanks to anti-Western sentiment,
you go ahead and do that.
One other comment, if I may. I share the concern most Westerners have about Russia's seizure
of Crimea. But where is our concern about Turkey's 40-plus-year occupation of northern
Cyprus, also sparked by internal political disorder on the island? Why is it alright for a
NATO country to invade another nation and prop up its separatists, expel the inhabitants of a
disfavored ethnic group -- in this case, the Greeks?
Shame on TAC for publishing this garbage. For one, Putin more or less saved Russia as a
sovereign state, it is easy to forget the sorry condition Russia was in at the turn of the
century. Without him, Russia would've most likely been dismembered or simply colonized by the
West and China. He has performed admirably in the face of massive odds. Russia will still
exist in 100 years as the state of the Russian and other native people of its land –
can the same be said of the United States? Russia is slowly climbing its way out of the pit
of despair created by 80 years of Communism, the United States is crawling into the very same
pit.
I am much more concerned that voter roll purges, suppression of the vote, Citizen's United
Dark Money and folks like the Kochs and Addelson are undermining US democracy than the
Russians. As for the aggression of military machines around the world, the US wins hands
down.
Like Fran my inclination was to bail after the first paragraph but I pushed on.
In the first paragraph Mr Desch lays out his position which is well within the bounds of
polite discussion that Russia is a corrupt oligarchy but don't worry because it's an economic
and military basketcase.
Where to start?
1. Corrupt kleptocracy. The Russian oligarchy/ mafia was a biproduct of the
privatization binge that followed the collapse of the USSR. This evolved under the disastrous
Yeltsin aided and abetted by US elites. The case of William Browder is instructive. Putin has
taken significant measures to reassert government control and has greatly improved the lot of
the average Russian.
2. Political freedom. Putin did not inherit a developed liberal democracy. Russia
needs to be judged in the context of its own historical timeline in this regard not compared
to western democracies. Do you prefer Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov? In contrast compare the
state and trajectory of US democratic institutions to, say the 1970s.
3. Human rights. Again the situation in Russia vis a vis human rights needs to be
judged in terms of Russia's history not against Western nations with a long-standing
tradition of human rights and political freedoms. That said, the illusion of political
repression is largely overstated. For example Putin is routinely accused of murdering
journalists but no real proof is ever offered. Instead, the statement is made again in this
article as though it were self evident.
4. Foreign aggression. This is my favorite because it flies in the face of
observable reality to the point of being ridiculous. Russia did not invade Ukraine. It
provided support to ethnic Russians in Ukraine who rebelled after the illegal armed overthrow
of the Russian leaning democratically elected president.That coup was directly supported by
the United States. Far from ratcheting up tensions Russia has consistently pressed for the
implementation of the Minsk accords. Putin is not interested in becoming responsible for the
economic and political basket case which is Ukraine. The "largely bloodless" occupation of
Crimea was actually a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly supported
annexation to Russia. Again This result makes sense in light of even a basic understanding of
Russian history. Finally, in the case of Georgia Russia engaged after Georgia attacked what
was essentially a Russian protectorate. This was the conclusion reached by an EU
investigation.
Russia's so-called aggressive foreign-policy has been primarily in response to NATOs
continuous push eastward and the perceived need to defend ethnic Russians from corrupt
ultranationalist governments in former republics of the USSR. This is what Putin was talking
about when he called the dissolution of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th
century – the fact that, overnight 20 million Russians found themselves living in
foreign countries. It wasn't about longing for a Russian empire.
As for the current state of Russias military capabilities, Mr Desch Would do well to read
Pepe Escobar's recent article in the Asia Times. Russian accomplishments in Syria illustrated
a level of technology and strategic effectiveness that rivals anything the US can do. Name
one other nation – other than the US – that can design and build a world class
6th generation fighter jet or develop its own space program. Even Germany can't do that.
This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia
scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think.
VG1959
"It is in the pursuit of empire that Putin, like Napoleon or Hitler before him, threatens the
stability of Europe and by extension world peace."
Ah! ha!ha! Right.
Like Russia with a population of 150 million persons inhabiting a land mass that stretches
across 9 or 10 time zones, from the Arctic pole to the Black Sea is chafing for "lebensraum"
!?
No, Russia just wants to develop what it already owns. And, trying to do it on the
strength of their own efforts (no overseas colonies filling the coffers), on a GDP as
Winston, above, has pointed out which is smaller than that some US states. They're focussed,
not on grabbing tiny, constipated territories like Estonia. Latvia, and Lithuania (full of
Nazi sympathizers), but on bringing back to life those ancient trade routes which are their
inheritance from the past (the Silk Road, primarily).
Why not just leave them alone and see what they can do? Those who have been relentlessly
picking fault with Russia (and North Korea) might want to put down their megaphones and start
taking notes.
What I mean is: pause for a moment to consider that:
1. Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold
reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or
brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to
recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the
nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt
and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries
have risen 3 or 4-fold.
2. North Korea, in 1953, had been so destroyed by war that no structures over a single
story were left standing (and American generals were actually barfing into their helmets at
the horror of what had been done to those people). The DPRK authorities, helpless to assist
the population, could only advise to dig shelters underground to survive the winter. Yet, 70
years later, under international sanctions designed to starve those traumatized people into
surrender, North Korea has restored its infrastructure, built modern cities, and developed a
military apparatus able to credibly resist constant threats from abroad.
See: rather than picking nits to find things that are not yet perfectly hunky-dory with
the governing structures/systems in those countries, I'm taking notes!!
Because, I'm convinced that if those people (those nations) were able to do what they've
done with the time and resources they've had to work with, there is absolutely no reason and
no excuse for our rich nations of "the West" to be caught in a nightmare of austerity
budgeting, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing pensions, and spiralling debt.
Funny how the English speaking world SO resisst learning something that could actually do
us a whole lot of good. I don't know who coined the terms "stiffnecked" and "bloodyminded",
but it sure describes us!
"From Moscow's perspective, the events in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014 looked suspiciously like
a Western-backed coup."
Gee, ya think? Kinda reminds one of the 1996 Russian election. But, hey, don't broadcast
this because, after all, too many people might start, er, noticing.
California – $2.751 trillion
Texas – $1.707 trillion
Russia – $1.578 trillion
Likbez:
@Winston July 28, 2018 at 10:00 am
Cult of GDP is a damaging mental disease. With the size of the USA financial sector it is grossly distorted.
The inflated costs of pharmaceutical and medical-industrial complex add another large portion of air into the US GDP.
Surveillance Valley (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc ) firms valuations are also inflated and their
contribution to the USA economics is overestimated in GDP.
There is also such thing as purchase parity. To compare GDP between countries, you must use purchasing power parity. To
compare GDP without calculating in purchasing parity is just naïve.
I suspect that in real purchasing power Russia is close to Germany (which means it it is the fifth largest economy)
The USA still has dominance is key technologies and cultural influence.
"... While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War. Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. ..."
"... Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of "we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!" ..."
"... "Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures." ..."
"... Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs. The American people just have no say in the matter. ..."
"... Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians ..."
"... Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering (Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there. ..."
"... I'll go a step further and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. ..."
"... It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it. ..."
"... What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished." ..."
"... The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its people. ..."
We have no choice. The 17-year war in Afghanistan has failed at every level, while the violence is only
getting worse.
Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is
instructing
its senior diplomats
to begin seeking "direct talks with the Taliban." It's a
measure that would have been unthinkable at the start of the Afghanistan war yet today it's long overdue. Despite the
criticism it's elicited, such talks offer the best chance of ending America's longest and most futile war.
While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military
operations in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks, it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how
to end the fighting on military terms.
Possibly the biggest impediment to ending the war has been the definition of the word
"win." General
Stanley McChrystal
said in 2009 that winning in
Afghanistan meant "reversing the perceived momentum" of the Taliban, "seek[ing] rapid growth of Afghan national security
forces," and "tackl[ing] the issue of predatory corruption by some" Afghan officials.
Nine full years and zero successes later, however, Lieutenant General Austin S.
Miller, latest in line to command U.S. troops in Afghanistan, defined as America's "core goal" at his
confirmation hearing
that "terrorists can never again use Afghanistan as a
safe haven to threaten the United States."
The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and Miller will likewise fail -- is that
these objectives
can't be militarily accomplished.
Predicating an end to the war on such is to guarantee perpetual failure. A major course correction is therefore in
order.
Keeping 15,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan does not,
in any way
, prevent terror attacks against the
United States from originating there -- and for this lack of success we will pay at least
$45 billion
this year alone. The real solution
is therefore to withdraw our troops as quickly as can be safely accomplished rather than throw more of them into a
fruitless conflict.
I personally observed in 2011 during my second combat deployment in Afghanistan that
even with 140,000 U.S. and NATO boots on the ground, there were still vast swaths of the country that were ungoverned
and off-limits to allied troops.
Meaning, at no point since October 2001 has American military power prevented
Afghanistan from having ungoverned spaces. What
has
kept us safe, however -- and will continue to keep us safe -- has been our robust, globally
focused
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that work in concert with the CIA, FBI, and local law
enforcement to defend our borders from external attack.
Many pundits claim that if the U.S. military withdraws from Afghanistan then chaos
will reign there -- and that is almost certainly true. But that's how we found Afghanistan, that's how it is today,
and -- wholly irrespective of when or under what conditions the U.S. leaves -- that's how it will be long into the future
until Afghans themselves come to an accommodation.
The question U.S. policymakers need to ask is which is more important to American
interests: the maintenance of a perpetually costly war that fails to prevent any future attacks, or ending America's
participation in that war?
Continuing to fight for a country that can't be won cements a policy that has drained
the U.S. of vital resources, spilled the blood of American service members to no effect, and dissipated the Armed Forces'
ability to defend against potentially existential threats later on -- while in the meantime not diminishing the threat of
international terrorism. To strengthen our national security, we must end the enduring policy of failure by prudently
and effectively ending our military mission.
While the fundamentals of a withdrawal plan are relatively straightforward, they would
still be met by considerable opposition. One of the arguments against leaving was voiced by McChrystal nine years ago
when
he pleaded
with the American public to "show resolve" because "uncertainty
disheartens our allies [and] emboldens our foe." Yet the facts can't be denied any longer: for all eight years of the
Obama administration and the first 500 days of Trump's tenure, we maintained that "resolve" and were rewarded with an
unequivocal deterioration of the war.
Since McChrystal's admonition to maintain the status quo, the Taliban have exploded in
strength to
reportedly 77,000
, more territory is now in the
hands of the insurgents than at
any point since 2001
, the Afghan government
remains one of the
most corrupt regimes
on the planet, and
civilian casualties in the first half of 2018 are the
highest ever recorded
.
The only way this permanent failure ends is if President Trump shows the courage he
has sometimes demonstrated to push back against the Washington establishment. That means ignoring the status quo that
holds our security hostage, ending the war, and redeploying our troops. Without that resolve, we can count on continued
failure in Afghanistan. With it, American security will be strengthened and readiness improved.
Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter
@DanielLDavis1
.
While agree totally with what Col. Davis says here about ending America's involvement in the Afghanistan War.
Way to many are profiting from this long-term misadventure. The only way these wars of choice will ever end is
when Congress has the balls to cut off funding. Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these
wars and how it impacts money necessary to re-build our country infrastructures. Military madness indeed.
Eminently sensible advice, except that Trump can't take it without being greeted with a hysterical chorus of
"we're losing Afghanistan ZOMG!" (as if we ever had it) and "Putin puppet!"
If Trump were going to leave, he
should have done so soon after taking office. At least then he could blame his predecessors.
The financial security of the National Security State and its suppliers now depends on no war ever ending or
being won. The new definition of defeat is having any war end. As long as it continues, that war is being won.
"Of course most Americans are clueless about the cost of these wars and how it impacts money necessary to
re-build our country infrastructures."
Completely disagree. I don't know a single individual who supports the
war in Afghanistan or misunderstands its costs.
The American people just have no say in the matter.
There is only one reason why the USA is still in Afghanistan that makes sense (all the official reasons are an
insult to ones intelligence), it borders on Iran and thus serves as a means to open a new front against Iran.
The more the US pushes for war against Iran, the more this seems correct.
"Reports have surfaced recently that the White House is instructing its senior diplomats to begin seeking
"direct talks with the Taliban."
I have to give my Jr High response here:
"Well, duh."
__________________
"While there is broad agreement that American leaders were justified in launching military operations in
Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks . . ."
Yeah . . . no.
1. They manipulated the game to make what was a crime an act of war to justify the an unnecessary,
unethical, and strategically unwise invasion. I remain now where I was 14 years ago -- bad decision in every
way.
2. It was even a poor decision based on reason for war. To utterly bend the will of the opponent to conform
to the will of the US. it is possible to win. But to do so would require such massive force, brutality and
will.
3. 9/11 was a simple criminal act, despite the damage. As a crime we should have sought extradition, and or
small team FBI and special forces operations to a small footprint in either capturing, and or if need be
killing Osama bin Laden and company.
Nothing that has occurred since 9/11 provides evidence that the invasion was either justified or effective.
It will if the end game is to quit be one of three losses suffered by the US.
They are: War of 1812
Iraq
Afghanistan
" . . . it's painfully evident after 17 years that no one has any idea how to end the fighting on military
terms."
Sure leave. Though talking so as to avert whole slaughter of those that aided the US is the decent thing to
do.
Finally, they realise what St Ronnie knew in the 1980s. He created the Taliban we know today via Operation
Cyclone. Maybe Ollie North can lead the negotiations? He seems to have a good channel to the Iranians
Solving USA problems in Afghanistan an at the same time pushing for war with Iran is by definition classic
oxymoron. Afghanistan's problems can only be solved with cooperation and understanding with Iran. Conflict of
the USA with Iran will extend indefinitely the suffering of the Afghanis and the eventual lose of the
Afghanistan and Iran to the Russia. Always reigniting and keeping on the front burner the conflict with Iran by
the USA is exactly what Russia and V. Putin want. I can't see any other politicians except D. Trump, B.
Netanyahu and American 'conservatives' for the advancement of the Russia's goals in the Middle East and in the
globalistan. These are the new XXI century 'useful (adjective)'.
Putting together Sid_finster's and spite's comments paints an interesting picture. Aside from war profiteering
(Fran Macadam) there is no real purpose served by our occupation except to be there.
I'll go a step further
and say that the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary too. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We were not
even attacked by the Taliban. We were attacked by al Quaida, by teams comprised mostly of Saudi Arabians. This
should have been a dirty knife fight in all the back alleys of the world, but we responded to the sucker punch
as our attackers intended; getting into a brawl with somebody else in the same bar; eventually, with more than
one somebody else.
It cannot be repeated too often that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Let the Taliban have it.
Indeed, but as others have commented, the entire point of the Afghanistan war is that it is pointless. It can
suck up enormous amounts of money, and generate incredible profits for politically connected defense
contractors – and because Afghanistan is in fact pointless, it doesn't matter if all of that money is wasted or
stolen, how could you tell? The vested interest in these winless pointless foreign wars means that they will
continue until the American economy finally collapses – and anyone who opposes these wars is a fascist, a
Russian stooge, "literally Hitler." Because money.
Thank you for this. I am very surprised to learn that Trump is pursuing this, given his pugilistic nature. I
hope he does in fact, get us the hell out of there. He may be, like Nixon, the one who is politically able to
make this smart move. Can you imagine the Republican outrage if Obama had tried a diplomatic exit from this
sand trap?
We can still be proud of what we attempted to do there. A few years post-9/11, an Afghan colleague of mine
who had come to the US as a boy said, "9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan." He meant that
rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US would do, we
poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads, etc.
"He meant that rather than carpet bombing Afghanistan "back to the Stone Age," as the left predicted the US
would do, we poured billions of dollars in aide to build schools, hospitals, sewage and water plants, roads,
etc."
And we could have done a lot more if we had not invaded. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
The achievable operational level Military objectives in the Afghan war were accomplished in the first year; The
Taliban were out of power and hiding in Pakistan and the Afghans had a somewhat benevolent government that
wanted to guarantee security an property and a measure of individual liberty.
What the Army could not do, and still cannot do, is transform a tribal society in isolated mountainous
terrain into a liberal democracy. As LTC Davis observes: "The reason McChrystal failed to end the war -- and
Miller will likewise fail -- is that these objectives can't be militarily accomplished."
This has been particularly true with the intense guerrilla actions enabled by the Pakistanis who have a
vested interest in an unstable Afghanistan.
I believe the noble goals 'might' have been doable – but it would have required a level of effort, and more
importantly a 'cultural confidence' on par with the Roman Empire of the 2nd Century to pull it off. That is no
longer us.
"9/11 is the best thing to ever happen to Afghanistan"? I bet none of his family members died or suffered.
Probably they are all living in the US. Are we supposed to feel proud that instead of carpet bombing and
killing millions our war killed only a hundred thousand?
Sadly, Kent, I do know people who still claim that our continued presence in Afghanistan is a good thing. Some
of these are otherwise fairly bright people, so I really can't comprehend why they continue to buy into this
idiocy.
Afghanistan must be Afghanistan and the US must be the US; this is such a simple tautology. If the US leaves,
Afghanistan will become what ever it can for its own reasons and options. If the US stays, it will be for the
US' reasons, not for the Afghans.
The conclusion of this simple argument is that the war in Afghanistan
actually has almost nothing to do with that country and almost entirely to do with the political and economic
demands arising from the US .nothing to do with Afghanistan other than the destruction of the place and its
people.
The Washington establishment came to their own conclusions about Russia and NATO --
but this is what they missed.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the recent
summit in Helsinki. (Office of the Russian Presisdent/Kremin.ru) Sifting through the cacophony
of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed,
ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage -- and
they require a good airing.
They are:
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But
Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so
much on NATO in the first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire
will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene
in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their
noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why.
Meanwhile
Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending
money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian
attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the
money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for
their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the
site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon
Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2
percent of gross national product.
There was no focus on the real, growing threat of
nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press
conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed
keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand).
Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on
Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour
or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because
they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may
think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument that democracies
don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.
For
all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave
Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic
attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting)
$200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if
they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that
Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to
weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul
writes how we never think
about other nations' interests.TAC argues we should
"Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, "
showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.
Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's
blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to
that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows
intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to
note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep
State" since at least 2015.
The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only
comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that
war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would
be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by
their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation
is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting
a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.
America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers
to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our
Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the
European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no
thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil
and gas vital for the world economy.
For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small
nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles
and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full
threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World
War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war
against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war
would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the
Crimean war. (See " Lessons in
Empire")
And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Mr. Utley is the publisher of The American Conservative 15 Responses to What
Everyone Seemed to Ignore in Helsinki
"And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington."
Careful with such cavalier use of the truth. Someone is sure to point out Vlad said just
the same, which means according to D.C. war profiteer sponsored consensus we should do
exactly the opposite.
Lovely article. One aspect of going to war for conquest over and over, is that it leads to
moral deterioration. Defensive wars aren't that bad. I am not sure why we haven't seen any
articles on TAC about this aspect -- is it that it's not a popular idea?
"1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO."
No, they are not. Defense budgets are increasing -- very different, and it was happening
already before Trump's tweets came along.
"2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or
accidental."
How do you know, since Trump hasn't told anyone what was discussed in Helsinki?
"3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin,
he gave Putin nothing."
Trump abased himself before Putin. That's not nothing. And who knows what else he gave Putin
behind closed doors. One must assume a lot since Trump is not out bragging about
particulars.
"4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in
dominating American foreign policy."
Trump personally approved the release of that intelligence.
The myth that NATO has kept Europe at peace since WWII (except for the Balkan war) is still
alive and well. But really, it was the fear of nuclear weapons that kept the peace.
It is the risk of war vs. the hidden agenda of trying to break Russia a second time.
The people who want to break Russia a second time really do believe that Russia is weak and
unwilling to risk war under any circumstances. So they want to expand NATO, get into another
arms race and wait for Russia to go bankrupt again. Rinse repeat China.
If we expand NATO, pull out of INF and even START, we can build missile bases near Russia's
borders, reduce or eliminate their exports, we can drive their economy into overdrive. But this
requires an information war to make it look like they are the aggressors while we are the ones
implementing this strategy.
By 'we' I mean our entrenched Foreign Policy Establishment that blathers about the 'rules
based world order' while we bomb any country we want whenever we want. Queue up another story
on how they encroached on NATO airspace while flying to their enclave in Kaliningrad, look at a
map, it's impossible not to so so.
Tying it back, they do not believe that there is any risk of war. They are wrong.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in
dominating American foreign policy Releasing the accusations and indictments via a press
already out for Trump's blood a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to
cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia."
To be sure, the 6-4-3 (Mueller to Rosenstein to Mainstream Media) double play appeared at
first to be a real beauty. However, the video replay showed that the pitcher had not yet
pitched the ball to the batter and that the shortstop Mueller, the second baseman Rosenstein,
and the MSM first baseman had carried out their double play with a ball that Mueller had pulled
out of his hip pocket. ("Hip pocket" is a polite euphemism for the proximate area of the
Mueller anatomy from whence the ball was actually pulled.)
The real question is what did Putin give Trump? Nothing, as far as can be seen. Efforts for a
dialogue with Russia are thwarted by Putin's continued occupation of Ukrainian territory, with
its implicit denial of the principle of the sovereign nation-state, which has been the building
block of the European political order since the French Revolution. For Americans, given the
history of the American continent, European nationalism and the nation-state are wholly
incomprehensible concepts but they're very real to us in Europe. Those Americans who promote a
poorly-understood European nationalism in the hope of destroying the EU are promoting the very
war they so piously claim to oppose.
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media
totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on
NATO in the first place?
Why would you top post a commentor who so clearly doesn't understand the details of what
he's discussing?
I mean -- such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues might qualify him to be the
Republican nominee for President (and thanks to the Electoral College, the President) but it is
beneath your editorial standards.
Enough of this "Deep State" nonsense: stop lambasting U.S. Federal law enforcement and
intelligence professionals for calling out Trump's willful ignorance/intentional lies about
Russia's malicious actions. Russian belligerence against the U.S. is a predictable and
manageable problem, but only by a President (e.g., Reagan, Bush 41) who grasps the complexity
of the issue and who can balance targeted confrontation and selective cooperation with Russia.
Trump is inherently incapable of striking that balance, as Putin clearly understands, therefore
U.S.-Russian relations will remain (usefully for Putin) confrontational for the near term.
Why is it up to the media to address the elephant in the room? Shouldn't the media simply
report what happened? Why doesn't Trump address the elephant in the room?
Our grandparents and parents fought the Commies.
GOP throws that away in search of lower taxes and less regulation.
GOP elites belong to the international elite, namely the highest bidder.
Shame.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election
just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in dominating
American foreign policy"
Others have already pointed out that the facts might not back up that the timing was some
elaborate plot, but even if this was a Derp State conspiracy on full display, it would probably
be proof of the opposite -- this would have not been an indication of influence, control,
domination, but a sign of weakness.
Like all conspiracy theories, "Deep State" implies competence, coordination, capability. Our
problem appears to be that we have too many bureaucracies infighting with each other, and
filled with too many shallow minds. Indeed, one could argue that 9/11 happened precisely
because of this.
That said, the first half of the article makes a compelling case of the foreign policy
aspect of the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria, and the existential threat originating with the
nuclear sector of the war profiteering presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex
-- "We end the world for money!" -- and the Great Gambler faction of the nelibcon biparty --
"We can win nuclear war!".
The other half of the national, collectivized insanity that is "Russia!" is the domestic
fraud: the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the functions of our
institutions of government is not Russia, but ourselves.
The semi-organized biparty mob -- the "Derp State" -- that is pushing the "Russia!"
narrative as the Grant Unified Theory of US American Home-Made Failure is systematically
destroying whatever is left of The People's confidence in our processes and institutions --
confidence in our ruling class had to have died before anybody considered voting for Trump --
and soon, we will find ourselves in a nation in which nobody can profess any trust in any
elected representative without being accused of being a traitor or useful idiot.
Putin, for one, could never accomplish that. American Excess: Hamstring your political
opponent? Worth It. Destroy democracy to protect it from The People? Priceless.
I wasn't aware that the U.s. Is finding new niclear-armed cruise missiles that would give
Russia only minutes to respond to an attack, as opposed to a half hour with ICBMs. Russia only
has to recalibrate its fully automated Doomsday Machine to target Warsaw, Berlin, and Cracow
along with U.S. cities, and to shorten the time of response.
We have to ask whether the exponentially greater likelihood of nuclear holocaust by
accident, which is what the U.S. would be bringing about by nuclear-arming cruise missiles,
proves that the Deep State's lust for power is irrational bordering on madness.
"... Rouhani is identifying the current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a "declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war. ..."
"... Trump's outburst is not the response of someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries ..."
"... It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to come. ..."
Golnar Motevalli gives the full context for the Rouhani statement that caused Trump to make
his unhinged threat
earlier this week:
Verbatim excerpts of what Rouhani said on Sunday. The entire statement was almost 2 hrs
long. He didn't say he wants to "launch war", he said opposite but warned of what war would
look like. He said US policy to choke Iran's economy is a US declaration of war against
Iranians: pic.twitter.com/XcirZTWi4d
As I said Sunday
night, it's clear that the statement from Rouhani wasn't a threat against the U.S. It was a
warning not to take aggressive action against Iran. Furthermore, Rouhani is identifying the
current administration policy of trying to strangle Iran's oil exports as a hostile act, a
"declaration of war" by the U.S. against the Iranian people. Trump's hostility to Iran is such
that he treats a verbal rebuke to a destructive policy he initiated as the same as a threat of
attack, and he twists Rouhani's defensive statement into a call for war.
It shouldn't have to be said at this point, but Trump's outburst is not the response of
someone interested in finding a diplomatic solution to tensions between our countries
.
It is obviously the response of a belligerent bully who overreacts to the slightest
opposition and seeks confrontation for its own sake. Trump's Iran obsession is extremely
dangerous for both the U.S. and Iran, and it is poisoning relations with Iran for many years to
come.
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom. ..."
"... For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue states like Iraq. ..."
"... The Making of Global Capitalism ..."
"... Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a strategic partner, as a strategic competitor. ..."
"... Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster in American history." ..."
"... Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries. ..."
"... Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China. ..."
"... Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade globalization. ..."
"... Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital, particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany. ..."
"... This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21 Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt about that." 22 ..."
"... Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise to imitate Britain and leave the EU. ..."
"... Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to its allies. ..."
"... Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea. ..."
"... On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot. ..."
"... Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's connections with the Russian state. ..."
"... One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York Times ..."
"... The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. ..."
"... Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures. ..."
"... China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China inhospitable for business. ..."
"... China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the strategic islands in the South China Sea. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... International Socialism Journal ..."
"... Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... Imperialism and World Economy, ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and the State in a Transitional World ..."
The neoliberal world order of free-trade globalization that the United States has pioneered
since the end of the Cold War is in crisis. The global slump, triggered by the 2007 Great
Recession, has intensified competition not only between corporations, but also between the
states that represent them and whose disagreements over the terms of trade have paralyzed the
World Trade Organization. Similar conflicts between states have disrupted regional free-trade
deals and regional blocs. Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement failed to come to a
vote in Congress, and now Trump has scrapped it. The vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom is a
precedent that could lead other states to bolt from the European Union. Rising international
tensions, especially between the United States, China, and Russia, fill the daily
headlines.
Indeed, the world has entered a new period of imperialism. As discussed in previous articles
in this journal, the unipolar world order based on the dominance of the United States, which
has been eroding for some time, has been replaced by an asymmetric multipolar
world order. The United States remains the only superpower, and possesses by far the largest
military reach, but it faces a global rival in China and a host of lesser rivals like Russia.
And the competition between nation-states over the balance of geopolitical and economic power
is intensifying.
The multiple crises and conflicts have also confronted all the world's states with the
largest migration crisis in history. Over fifty million migrants and refugees are fleeing
economies devastated by neoliberalism, the economic crisis, political instability, and in the
case of the Middle East -- especially Syria -- counterrevolution against the Arab Spring
uprisings. The bourgeois establishment and their right-wing challengers have scapegoated these
migrants in country after country.
All of this has destabilized bourgeois politics throughout the world, opening the door to
both the Left and the Right posing as alternatives to the establishment. In the United States,
Donald Trump won the presidency with the promise to "Make America Great Again" by putting
"America First." He threatens to retreat from the post-Cold War grand strategy of the United
States overseeing the international free-trade regime, in favor of economic nationalism and
what has been described as a "transactional" approach to international politics.
While Trump aims to continue certain neoliberal policies at home (such as deregulation,
privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy), his international policies represent a
significant shift away from global "free trade." He has promised to rip up or renegotiate
free-trade deals and impose protectionist tariffs on economic competitors. To enforce this, he
wants to rearm the American military to push back against all rivals -- China in particular --
and conduct what he depicts in racist fashion a civilizational war against Islam in the Middle
East. He marries this militaristic nationalism to a bigoted campaign of scapegoating against
immigrants, Muslims, Blacks, women, and all other oppressed groups.
Panic in the imperial brain trust
The architects and ideologues of American imperialism recognize that their grand strategy is
in crisis, and worry that Trump's new stand will only magnify it. The Financial Times
' Martin Wolf declares,
We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period -- that of western-led
globalization -- and a geopolitical one -- the post-cold war "unipolar moment" of a US-led
global order. The question is whether what follows will be an unraveling of the post-second
world war era into de-globalization and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th
century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a
bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order. 1
Obama's favorite neocon Robert Kagan warns that Washington's retreat from managing the world
system risks "backing into World War III," the title of the piece in which he writes:
Think of two significant trend lines in the world today. One is the increasing ambition
and activism of the two great revisionist powers, Russia and China. The other is the
declining confidence, capacity, and will of the democratic world, and especially of the
United States, to maintain the dominant position it has held in the international system
since 1945. As those two lines move closer, as the declining will and capacity of the United
States and its allies to maintain the present world order meet the increasing desire and
capacity of the revisionist powers to change it, we will reach the moment at which the
existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has
three times in the past two centuries. The cost of that descent, in lives and treasure, in
lost freedoms and lost hope, will be staggering. 2
In somewhat more measured tones, the imperial brain trust of American imperialism, the
Council on Foreign Relations, is using their journal, Foreign Affairs , to oppose
Trump and defend the existing neoliberal order with minor modifications. 3 Stewart
Patrick, for example, worries that Trump has laid-out
no broader vision of the Unites States' traditional role as defender of the free world,
much less outline how the country play that part. In foreign policy and economics, he has
made clear that the pursuit of narrow national advantage will guide his policies --
apparently regardless of the impact on the liberal world order that the United States has
championed since 1945. That order was fraying well before November 8. It had been battered
from without by challenges from China and Russia and weakened from within by economic malaise
in Japan and crises in Europe, including the epochal Brexit vote last year. No one knows what
Trump will do as president. But as a candidate, he vowed to shake up world politics by
reassessing long-standing U.S. alliances, ripping up existing U.S. trade deals, raising trade
barriers against China, disavowing the Paris climate agreement, and repudiating the nuclear
accord with Iran. Should he follow through on these provocative plans, Trump will unleash
forces beyond his control, sharpening the crisis of the Western-centered order.
The Council's Gideon Rose fears that Trump is introducing "damaging uncertainty into
everything from international commerce to nuclear deterrence. At worst, it could cause other
countries to lose faith in the order's persistence and start to hedge their bets, distancing
themselves from the Unites States, making side deals with China and Russia, and adopting
beggar-thy-neighbor programs." 4
But the Council and the rest of the foreign policy establishment have little to offer as a
solution to the crisis they describe. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations' president,
Richard Haass's, new book, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of
the Old Order , produces little more than tactical maneuvers designed to incorporate
America's rivals into the existing neoliberal order. 5 But it is within that very
order that the United States has undergone relative decline against its increasingly assertive
rivals, especially China.
Neoliberalism's solution to the crisis last time
The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with
its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis
of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a
conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in
response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom.
The US ruling class adopted what later came to be known as neoliberalism in coherent form
under the regimes of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.
6 Neoliberalism had domestic and international dimensions. At home, the mantra was
privatization and deregulation. The ruling class got rid of regulations on capital and launched
a war against workers. They privatized state-run businesses as well as traditionally state-run
institutions like prisons and schools. They busted unions, drove down wages, and cut the
welfare state to ribbons.
Abroad, the United States expanded the program of "free trade" they had pursued since the
end of World War II. Seeking cheap labor, resources, and markets, Washington used its dominance
of international institutions to pry open national economies throughout the world. It aimed
first to incorporate its allies, then its antagonists in this neoliberal world order, with the
promise that it would work in the interests of "the capitalist class" around the world. As
Henry Kissinger once remarked, "What is called globalization is really another name for the
dominant role of the United States." 7 These domestic and international policies
overcame the crises of the 1970s and ushered in a period of economic expansion (interrupted by
a few recessions) that lasted from the early 1980s through to the early 2000s. 8
The brief unipolar moment
Unable to keep pace with the West's economic expansion and the Reagan administration's
massive rearmament program, and beset by its own internal contradictions, the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991, and the Cold War's bipolar geopolitical order came to an end. The United
States hoped to establish a new unipolar world order in which it would solidify its position as
the world's sole remaining, and unassailable, superpower.
For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world
imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the
Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF,
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies
that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt
restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose
privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over
the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue
states like Iraq.
Amidst the heady days of this unipolar moment, much of the left abandoned the classical
Marxist theory of imperialism developed chiefly by the early twentieth century Russian
revolutionaries Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin. In brief, Lenin and Bukharin argued that
capitalist development transformed economic competition into interstate rivalry and war for the
political and economic division and redivision of the world system between the dominant
capitalist powers vying for hegemony. 9
"The development of world capitalism leads," wrote Bukharin, "on the one hand, to an
internationalization of the economic life and, on the other, to the leveling of economic
differences, and to an infinitely greater degree, the same process of economic development
intensifies the tendency to 'nationalize' capitalist interests, to form narrow 'national'
groups armed to the teeth and ready to hurl themselves at one another at any moment."
10
Imperialism was a product of the interplay between the creation of a world market and the
division of the world between national states, and as such was a product of the system rather
than simply a policy of a particular state or party. This was in contrast to the German
socialist Karl Kautsky, who argued that imperialism was a policy favored by some sections of
the capitalists but which ran against the interests of ruling classes as a whole, which, as a
result of the economic integration of the world market, had a greater interest in peaceful
competition.
The new period of globalized capitalism produced new theories that rejected Lenin and
Bukharin's approach. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argued in their 2000 book that
globalization had replaced imperialism with a new structure of domination they termed empire.
Nonstate networks of power, like international financial institutions such as the IMF and the
World Bank, were now, in an era where states were increasingly powerless, the dominant world
players. 11 "The United States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form
the center of an imperialist project," they famously wrote in the preface. 12 Others
took the argument further, maintaining that a system of globalized transnational production and
trade was fast displacing states, including Washington, as influential centers of power.
13
On the other extreme, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin argue in their 2012 book The Making of
Global Capitalism that the American state organized globalization and integrated all the
world's states as vassals of its informal empire. 14 Though diametrically opposed at
the start, these arguments ended with the same conclusion -- inter-imperial rivalries between
the world's leading states, including the potential for them to spill over into military
conflict -- are not a necessary outcome of capitalism; and today those rivalries are a thing of
the past.
The return of rivalry in an asymmetric world order
Developments in the real world -- such as the Bush administration's 2001 invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan, and two years later of Iraq -- viscerally disproved these arguments.
Indeed, changes in the real world were already undermining the foundations of the postwar world
order that Kagan and others are frantically holding up against Trump's "America First"
nationalism.
Washington's drive to cement its hegemony in a unipolar world order was undermined in
several ways. The neoliberal boom from the early 1980s to the 2000s produced new centers of
capital accumulation. China is the paradigmatic example. After it abandoned autarkic state
capitalism in favor of state-managed production for the world market, it transformed itself
from a backwater producer to the new workshop of the world. It vaulted from producing about 1.9
percent 15 of global GDP in 1979 to about 15 percent in 2016. 16 It is
now the second-largest economy in the world and predicted to overtake the United States as the
largest economy in the coming years.
But China was not the sole beneficiary of the neoliberal expansion. Brazil and other
regional economies also developed. And Russia, after suffering an enormous collapse of its
empire and its economic power in the 1990s, managed to rebuild itself as a petro-power with
disproportionate geopolitical influence because of its nuclear arsenal. Of course, whole
sections of the world system did not develop at all, but instead suffered dispossession and
economic catastrophe.
Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq
backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to
do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he
and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a
strategic partner, as a strategic competitor.17
Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in
Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United
States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the
region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General
William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster
in American history."18
Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil,"
emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia
fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China
became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic
pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries.
Russia also took advantage of American setbacks to reassert its power against EU and NATO
expansionism in Eastern Europe. It went to war against US ally Georgia in 2008. In Central
Asia, China and Russia came together to form a new alliance, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. They postured against American imperialism in their own imperial interests.
Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU
particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained
its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and
sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China.
This was the high-water mark of the so-called BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa. The lesser powers in this bloc hitched their star to Chinese imperialism,
exporting their commodities to fuel China's industrial expansion. Together they launched the
BRICS bank, officially known as the New Development Bank, and China added another, the Asian
Infrastructure Development Bank, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank. The recent Chinese
slowdown and the consequent drop in commodity prices have, however, hammered the economies of
many of the BRICS.
These developments cracked the unipolar moment and replaced it with today's asymmetric world
order. The United States remains the world's sole superpower; but it now faces an international
rival in China and in lesser powers like Russia. It must also wrestle with regional powers that
pursue their own interests, sometimes in sync with Washington and other times at odds with
it.
Obama's failure to restore dominance
The Obama administration came to power with the hopes of restoring the credibility and
standing of American power in the wake of Bush's disasters in the Middle East. It implemented a
combined program of stimulus and austerity to restore growth and profitability. By imposing a
two-tier wage structure on the auto industry, it set a precedent for competitive
reindustrialization in the United States, and launched the massive fracking expansion to
provide cheap domestic energy to US corporations.
Intending to extract the United States from its costly and inconclusive ground wars in the
Middle East, Obama turned to air power, shifting the focus of the so-called War on Terror to
drone strikes, Special Force operations, and air support for US proxy forces in different
countries.
Once disentangled from Bush's occupations, Obama planned to conduct the ballyhooed "pivot to
Asia" to contain China's ongoing rise, bolster Washington's political and military alliance
with Japan and South Korea, and prevent their economic incorporation into China's growing
sphere of influence. The now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership was meant to ensure American
economic hegemony in the region, which would then be backed up militarily with the deployment
of 60 percent of the US Navy to the Asia Pacific region. 19 Obama also began to push
back against Russian opposition to the EU and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe -- hence the
standoff over Ukraine.
But Obama was unable to fully implement any of this because US forces remained bogged down
in the spiraling crisis in the Middle East. Retreating from the Bush administration's policy of
regime change to balancing between the existing states, Obama, while continuing to support
historic US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, at the same time struck a deal with Iran
over its nuclear program. But this strategy was undermined by the Arab Spring, the regimes'
counterrevolutions, attempts by regional powers to manipulate the rebellion for their own ends,
and the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The United States has been unable to resolve many of
these developing crises on its own terms.
Now Russia, after having suffered a long-term decline of its power in the region, has
managed to reassert itself through its intervention in Syria in support of Assad's
counterrevolution. It is now a broker in the Syrian "peace process" and a new player in the
broader Middle East.
While the United States continued to suffer relative decline, China and Russia became even
more assertive. Russia took Crimea, which provoked the United States and Germany to impose
sanctions on the Kremlin. China intensified its economic deal making throughout the world,
increasing its foreign direct investment from a paltry $17.2 billion in 2005 to $187 billion in
2015. 20 At the same time, it engaged in a massive buildup of its navy and air force
(though its military is still dwarfed by the US) and constructed new military bases on various
islands to control the shipping lanes, fisheries, and potential oil fields in the South China
Sea.
Obama did manage to oversee the recovery of the US economy, and China has suffered an
economic slowdown. That has dramatically reversed the economic fortunes of the BRICS, in
particular Brazil, which has experienced economic collapse and a right-wing governmental coup.
The drop in oil prices that accompanied the Chinese slowdown also hammered the OPEC states as
well as Russia.
But China's slowdown has not reversed Beijing's economic and geopolitical ascension. In
fact, China is in the process of rebalancing its economy to replace multinational investment,
expand its domestic market, and increase production for export to the rest of the world. The
aim is to increase its ability to compete with the United States and the EU at all levels.
Thus, well before Trump's election, the United States had been mired in foreign policy
problems that it seemed incapable of resolving.
Trump's break with neoliberalism
Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is
the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine
neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that
breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade
globalization.
Inside the United States, Trump aims to double down on some aspects of neoliberalism. He
plans to cut taxes on the rich, rip up government regulations that "hamper" business interests,
expand Obama's fracking program to provide corporations cheaper energy, and to go after public
sector unions. He also wants to invest $1 trillion to modernize the country's decrepit
infrastructure. While his Gestapo assault on immigrants is less popular among the business
class, they are salivating over the tax and regulatory cuts. Trump hopes with these economic
carrots to lure American manufacturing companies back to the United States.
At the same time, however, Trump wants to upend the neoliberal Washington Consensus. He is
threatening to impose tariffs on American corporations that move their production to other
countries. He has already nixed the TPP and intends to do the same to the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe. He promises to renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and
Canada to secure better terms, and, in response to Chinese and EU protectionism, he threatens
to impose a border tax of 45 percent on Chinese and others countries' exports to the United
States. These measures could trigger a trade war.
Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American
workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital,
particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany.
This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he
views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military
spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to
build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other
powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21
Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as
to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt
about that." 22
Trump also plans to intensify what he sees as a civilizational war with Islam. This will
likely involve ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, intensifying the war on ISIS in Iraq and
Syria, and conducting further actions against al Qaeda internationally. It will also likely
involve doubling down on Washington's alliance with Israel. Trump's appointment as ambassador
to Israel, David Friedman, is actually to the right of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. 23 Trump has already begun escalating the ongoing war on Muslims
conducted by the last two administrations, with his executive orders that are in effect an
anti-Muslim ban and have increased the profiling, surveillance, and harassment of Muslims
throughout the country.
To pay for this military expansion, the Trump administration, in Bannon's phrase, plans to
carry out the "deconstruction of the administrative state." Thus, the administration has
appointed heads of departments, like Ed Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose
main purpose is to gut them. 24 No doubt this will entail massive cuts to social
programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign
policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to
get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary
of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States
remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German
capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise
to imitate Britain and leave the EU.
Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to
international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade
blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing
them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted
in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to
its allies.
In a departure from Obama's policy toward Russia, Trump intends to create a more
transactional relationship with the Kremlin. He does not view Russia as the main threat; he
believes that is China. In addition to considering cutting a deal with Russia to drop sanctions
over its seizure of Crimea, he wants to collaborate with Putin in a joint war against ISIS in
Syria.
Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump
then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control
of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to
deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea.
Trump's economic nationalism leads directly to his "fortress America" policies. These
policies chiefly target Muslims and immigrants, but they should not be seen in isolation from
other domestic policies. With the wave of protests against his attacks that emerged from the
moment he stepped into office, Trump and his allies in state governments have introduced bills
that impose increasing restrictions on the right to protest and give the police a license for
repression with impunity. Thus the corollary of his "America First" imperialism abroad is
authoritarianism at home.
Can Trump succeed?
Trump faces a vast array of obstacles that could stop him from implementing his new
strategy. To begin with, he is an unpopular president with an approval rating hovering below 40
percent in his first months in office. He and his crony capitalist cabinet will no doubt face
many scandals, compromising their ability to push through their agenda.
He may be his own biggest obstacle. His 6 A.M. tweets are signs of someone more concerned
with his celebrity status than imperial statecraft. He has already lost his national security
adviser, Michael Flynn, due to Flynn's failure to disclose his communication with Russian
diplomats during the campaign, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions took heat on similar
charges, forcing him to recuse himself from any investigations of the Trump campaign with the
Kremlin.
There are also real economic challenges to his ability to follow through on his economic
program. He simultaneously promises to cut taxes for the wealthy, spend hundreds of millions on
domestic infrastructure (not to mention the billions it would cost to build a wall along the
US–Mexico border), and cut the deficit. This does not square with economic reality.
On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all
capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous
stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and
scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and
investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot.
25
Even his cabinet opposes much of his program. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testified
that he supports the TTP and American obligations to its NATO allies in Europe, including
recent deployments of American troops to Poland. And Trump's Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog"
Mattis disagrees with Trump's proposal to rip up the nuclear treaty with Iran.
Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what
has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their
interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State
Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and
abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's
connections with the Russian state.
One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing
the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure
defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York
Times . 26 Thus, the core of the capitalist state is at least attempting to
constrain Trump, bring down some of his appointees and may, if they see it as necessary, do the
same to Trump himself. At the very least, these extraordinary divisions at the top create a
sense of insecurity, and open up space for questioning and struggle from below.
The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking
him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian
Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. As Glenn
Greenwald writes, the Democrats are
not "resisting" Trump from the left or with populist appeals -- by, for instance, devoting
themselves toprotection ofWall Street and environmental regulations
under attack , or supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade
agreements, or demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred. Instead, they're attacking him
on the grounds of insufficient nationalism, militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to
avoid confrontation with Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the
leading Cold Warriors).
This is why they're finding such common cause with the
nation's most bloodthirsty militarists -- not because it's an alliance of convenience but
rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump,
neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton presidency).
27
Republicans also object to many of Trump's initiatives. For example, John McCain has
attacked his cozy relationship with the Kremlin. And neoliberals in the Republican Party
support the TPP and free trade globalization in general. The neocon Max Boot has gone so far as
to support the Democrat's call for a special counsel to investigate Trump's collusion with
Putin. He explains,
There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of
a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise
we will never know the full story of the Kremlin's tampering with our elections and of the
Kremlin's connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate
attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal.
28
Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy
could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his
policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to
scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most
disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its
bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures.
Economic nationalism beyond Trump?
While Trump's contradictions could stymie his ability to impose his economic nationalist
program, that program is not going to disappear any more than the problems it is intended to
address. The reality is that the United States faces continued decline in the neoliberal world
order. China, even taking into account the many contradictions it faces, continues to benefit
from the current setup.
That's why, in an ironic twist of historic proportions, Chinese premier Xi Jing Ping
defended the Washington Consensus in his country's first address at the World Economic Forum in
Davos Switzerland. He even went so far as to promise to come to the rescue of free-trade
globalization if the Trump administration abandoned it. "No one will emerge as a
winner in a trade war ," he declared. "Pursuing protectionism is just like locking one's
self in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so are light and air."
29
One of his underlings, Zhang Jun, remarked, "If anyone were to say China is playing a
leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the
front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China. If China is required to play that
leadership role then China will assume its responsibilities." 30
China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals
that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned
and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to
the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the
American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China
inhospitable for business.32
China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in
Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific
region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia
Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to
build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the
strategic islands in the South China Sea.
All of this was underway before Trump. That's why Obama was already inching toward some of
Trump's policies. He initiated the pivot to Asia, deployed the US Navy to the region, and
imposed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires. He also complained about NATO countries and others
freeloading on American military largesse. He thus encouraged Japan's rearmament and
deployments of its forces abroad. He also began the move to on-shoring manufacturing based on a
low-wage America with cheap energy and revitalized infrastructure.
So it's imaginable that another figure could take up and repackage Trump's economic
nationalism. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is clear that there is a trajectory
deep in the dynamics of the world system toward interimperial rivalry between the United States
and its main imperialist challenger, China. Obviously there are countervailing forces that
mitigate the tendency toward military conflict between them. The high degree of economic
integration makes the ruling classes hesitant to risk war. And, because all the major states
are nuclear powers, each is reluctant to risk armed conflicts turning into mutual
annihilation.
For background on this key institution of American imperialism see Laurence H. Shoup and
William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States
Foreign Policy (New York: Authors Choice Press, 2004), and Laurence H. Shoup, Wall
Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal
Geopolitics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015).
Gideon Rose, "Out of Order," Foreign Affairs (January–February,
2017).
Richard Haass, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old
Order (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).
For one of the best accounts of neoliberalism as a response to globalization and a
strategy to overcome the crisis of the 1970s, see Neil Davidson, "The Neoliberal Era in
Britain: Historical Developments and Current Perspectives," International Socialism
Journal , no. 139 (2013),
http://isj.org.uk/the-neoliberal-era-in-... .
Lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, Oct. 12, 1999, cited by Sam Gindin in "Social Justice
and Globalization: Are They Compatible?" Monthly Review , June 2002, 11.
For an account of the neoliberal boom and consequent crisis and slump, see David McNally,
Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance (Oakland, CA: PM
Press, 2010).
For a summary of the classical theory of imperialism, see Phil Gasper, "Lenin and
Bukharin on Imperialism," International Socialist Review , no. 100 (May 2009),
http://isreview.org/issue/100/lenin-and-...
.
For a summary and critique of Hardt and Negri's ideas see Tom Lewis, "Empire strikes
out," International Socialist Review , no. 24 (July–August 2002), www.isreview.org/issues/24/empire_strike...
.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2000),
xiii–xiv.
See, for example, William Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class,
and the State in a Transitional World (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins, 2004).
See Ashley Smith, "Global empire or imperialism?" International Socialist Review
, no 92 (Spring 2014), http://isreview.org/issue/92 .
Justin Yifu Lin, "China and the Global Economy," Remarks at the Conference "Asia's Role
in the Post-Crisis Global Economy," November 29, 2011,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/s... .
Ed Pilkington and Martin Pengelly, "'Let it Be an Arms Race': Donald Trump Appears to
Double Down on Nuclear Expansion," The Guardian , December 24, 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/...
.
Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa, "Bannon Vows Daily Fight for the "Deconstruction of the
Administrative State," Washington Post , February 23, 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-s... .
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Rumblings of a 'Deep State' Undermining Trump? It Was Once a
Foreign Concept," New York Times , March 6, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/po... .
Stephen Fidler, Te-Ping Chen, and Lingling Wei, "China's Xi Jingping Seizes Role as
Leader of Globalization," Wall Street Journal , January 17, 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-xi-jinping-d...
.
For further discussion of this point, see Ashley Smith, "Anti-imperialism and the Syrian
Revolution," Socialist Worker , August 25, 2016, https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/25/a...
.
"... Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals ..."
"... The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics is not without its basis. ..."
"... The marriage between neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W. Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element. Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up their end. ..."
"... The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. ..."
"... The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade war. ..."
"... As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. ..."
"... The Right Nation: Conservative Power in ..."
"... The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal values. ..."
"... Understood in proper terms, "economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else. ..."
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Trump secured his first major
policy victory. Despite their federal dominance, the Republican Party has proven to be
legislatively constipated. Below the surface of party unity, sectarian differences between the
competing strains of American conservatism have hindered it from taking advantage of its
historical positioning. Nevertheless, tax cuts proved to be a workable common ground that Trump
was able to take advantage of. While commentary of the passage has tended to focus on this
Republican unity, the most significant aspect of the Act's passage is the refutation that
Donald Trump's ascension to the White House would somehow mark an end to the era of neoliberal
economics. Furthering neoliberal policies has not only been an aspect of Trump's agenda but a
critical goal that works in tandem with his xenophobic rhetoric. Far from being opposed by the
Bannon faction of Trump's coalition, neoliberalism has provided a comforting aerie for their
fascist inclinations to develop. Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many
of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals .
The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics
is not without its basis. In a bizarre case of enveloping ironies, Trump's presidential
campaign was successful in portraying him as both a billionaire business wizard and as an
example of an American everyman. He advocated for "draining the swamp" of corrupt Wall Street
executives, while at the same time paraded his practice of tax evasion has an example of his
shrewd financial acumen. The incompatibility of these two personas is obvious, but it has a
certain appeal within the context of America's poor whites. Poor white Americans are both
spiteful toward and enamored by capitalism. They are spiteful because it retards their own
social mobility, but enamored with it because it provides a basis for their own privilege over
racial minorities. Unlike their counterparts among racial minorities, poor whites do not
consider themselves poor by class, but poor by temporary misfortune. They are not poor per se,
but rather down-on-their-luck millionaires whose are unjustly treated by liberal elites and
coddled minorities. For these people, Trump represented an enchanting example of uncouth
success. The fact that he was crass and despised only reinforced the notion that it is not
connections and education that made a person wealthy, but hard work and an intuition for
affluence. Culturally speaking, these are traits are considered innate to white Americans. Of
course, to believe this mythology, many of Trump's low-class acolytes were only willing to
support his campaign under the pretext of an unspoken bargain: they would ignore the reality
that his wealth was inherited and not earned, and he would refrain from the usual Republican
claptrap about the virtues of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. That way both partners
could remain comfortable in their delusions that all their current and potential future wealth
was a product of their own doing. The result of this unspoken bargain was that Trump was
supposed to offer America a new version of conservativism. The marriage between
neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W.
Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism
policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be
doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element.
Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege
on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up
their end.
Astute observers saw this betrayal coming. The argument that Trump would somehow
overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In
doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of
neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China
and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political
savant. The issue was always economically inane. A trade deficit in-and-of-itself reveals
very little about the overall health of an economy. Whether a nation should strive for or
against a trade deficit is more dependent on that nation's strategic position within the global
economy, and not necessarily an indicator of the health of domestic markets. But, trade proved
to be a salient issue for symbolic purposes. Stagnation and automation have compelled American
middle and lower classes to accept an economic torpor. Making trade deficits a central campaign
tenant provided these people with an outlet for their class anxieties without having to
question the nature of class itself. Lethargic economic growth was blamed on Mexicans and the
Chinese. The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs
by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade
war.
While Trump's criticism of Mexico and China seemed to imply an undoing of international
market liberalization and a return to an age of greater protectionism, in reality, Trump very
rarely recommended such policies. Instead, he made vague references to "good people" who will
make "good deals" for American workers and openly preferred lowering America's corporate tax
rate in order to encourage businesses to reinvest in the United States. The first proposal was
always understood as meaningless. Its value was in showmanship. A person can hoodwink the world
into thinking that they are a genius just by referring to everyone around them as a moron.
However, the second proposal not only does not overturn the reigning neoliberal order, it
strengthens it. As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the
ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority
over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. The deficit be damned if preventing it
smacks of any hint of expropriation of the wealthy. But, the deficit is not entirely damned. It
is an open secret that Republicans are salivating for a fiscal crisis that will provide them
with a pretext for cutting Social Security and Medicare. It was only a matter of time before
Trump's administration wholeheartedly joins them.
The fact that the real potential for cutting favored government programs has not resulted in
the same outcry among Trump's supporters, even among low-class demographics, as his suggestion
that he might soften his position on immigration is a grave concern. Social Security and
Medicare are extremely popular in the United States among poor and working people regardless of
ethnicity and political ideology. Nevertheless, tolerance for their obliteration has become
palatable to the majority of white Americans. In 2004, journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian
Wooldridge published their exhaustive history of the American Right, The Right Nation: Conservative Power
inAmerica . At the time, Michlethwait and Wooldridge could accurately claim
that "in no other country is the Right defined so much by values rather than class Yet despite
the importance of values, America has failed to produce a xenophobic 'far Right' on anything
like the same scale as Europe has." A little over a decade later, Michlethwait's and
Wooldridge's observation has become obsolete. Trump is inept at policy and governance, but he
is a skilled mobilizer and has managed to shift the American Right into a new direction.
The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and
its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal
values.
Trump has not only furthered the neoliberal doctrine of privatization, but also that of the
economization of everyday life, and specifically, the economization of American racism. While
fear of cultural differences between "the west" and "the rest" has always been front and center
for the Bannon wing of Trump's coalition, more tactical voices find economic justifications for
their xenophobia: immigrants steal jobs, freeride on welfare benefits, and don't pay taxes. The
image that emerges when these talking points converge is a political system enamored with
quantifying and dispensing material goods between those who deserve and those who do not. For
most modern conservatives, opposition to immigration is not based on an open fear of
differences; rather, it is a feeling that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are
unwilling to accept a free market economic system that treats all Americans on fair and equal
terms. Unlike average Americans, who work hard and thus deserve their market remunerations,
immigrants -- and by implication other minorities -- rely on a mixture of government handouts
and liberal acquiescence to the rules. Immigrants cash their welfare checks because liberal
elites look the other way on law enforcement. This worldview suggests that the government
should not only be redirected to strenuous law enforcement but also that it should not be in
the business of providing society with social welfare in the first place. Doing so only creates
an impetus for illegal immigration and lazy minorities. In this manner, Bannon's cheerleading
of "economic nationalism" was always a rhetorical mirage. Understood in proper terms,
"economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's
words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private
contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else.
There is no fundamental difference in the terms of the realpolitik outcomes between
Friedman's neoliberalism and Bannon's economic nationalism, even if they begin from separate
economic philosophies. The only difference is in what should be considered preferable within
market configurations. In Capitalism and Freedom ,
Friedman emphasizes his personal objections to racist ideologies but sees no need for a
government to ensure racial equality. According to Friedman, racism is to be overcome through
individual argumentation, not political struggle; it is the changing of tastes within the
marketplace that will provide the liberation of ethnic minorities, not the paternal hand of the
government preventing discrimination. Friedman's de-politicizing of racial anxieties to mere
matters of "taste," provides an opening for those -- like Bannon -- who are eager to engage in
a culture war, but are well aware of the potentially alienating effects of actually taking up
arms. If racial discrimination is only a matter of "taste," similar to other desires within the
marketplace, then the maintenance of white supremacy is predicated on its profitability. As
long as whiteness can maintain its social hegemony, then Friedman's governmental obligations
"to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets," will
serve to reinforce it. The neoliberal economizing of American racism allows for many of the
effects of white supremacy without necessarily the adoption of any of its core premises.
Trump's coalition of white nationalists and free-market ideologues thus become comfortable
bedfellows, even while maintaining a rhetorical mistrust of each other.
The question is can Trump maintain his coalition of realigned conservatives in time for the
next election cycle? While his low polling numbers and recent Democratic Party successes are
encouraging, they are not foolproof. The destabilizing of the narrative on American racism can
only occur through a refusal to accept the economization of the debate. The exclusion of racial
minorities from social welfare and the utter bureaucratic madness of the United States'
immigration policies have a moral dimension that has to take precedence over concerns regarding
job stealing and tax burdens, no matter how fallacious such arguments are to begin with.
Expecting the Democratic Party's leadership to play a leading role in this de-economization of
the debate is not impossible, but unlikely. Along with Republicans, Democrats have been
complicit in the framing social issues in relations to the economy, and the economy as merely
working in the service of private interests. Only recently has the leftwing of the Democratic
Party been organized and energized enough to counter this influence and return the party to its
New Deal orientation. Whatever its limitations, Roosevelt's "freedom from want" provides a
moral framework for economic policy. It is a reasonable and familiar starting point to break
with a neoliberal credo that economizes all morality within a capitalist framework.
While the left-wing of the Democratic Party has seen tremendous progress, it is still far
from overturning the organization's centrist leadership. In many ways, the passage of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act is a painful reminder of how weak the American Left is once Republicans are
able to stay united. Like with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
is extremely unpopular. The trickledown theory of economics that the act is based on is rightly
seen a convenient canard for the rich. So much so, that it has been reduced to a cliché
joke among late night talk show hosts. With the exception of Fox News, the mainstream press has
frequently commented on the nearly universal consensus among economists that the Act will
result in a massive transfer of wealth to the upper class. Intellectually, there is no place
for defenders of the Act to hide. However, unlike opposition to repealing the Affordable Care
Act, opposition to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been somewhat muted. While Americans still are
seething from the injustices of the 2007-2008 economic collapse, ten years on, they still have
not found a tangible political venue to express their frustrations. This means that regardless
of the outcome of the next election cycle the American Left is going to have to play a
persistent role creating a meaningful outlet for people's dismay, and fostering a political
discourse that recognizes that the Trump phenomenon is rooted in the neoliberal age that
preceded it. The dangerous tantrum-prone child of Trumpism will only be forced off the
playground when its neoliberal parents no longer own the park.
China is enjoying this as the Dems distract us without real evidence about Russia collusion
we are being blindsided by them. Funny how Brennan a former communist sympathizer who voted
for Gus Hall in 1976 is crying treason. Wow.
Brennan, who voted for the US Communist Party candidate in the 1976 election, is screaming
the treason hyperbole because the CIA is most likely the origin of the Russia Collusion
farce:
"According to one account, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer
2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at
"director level". After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and
intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation."
BTW, Hannigan resigned for the usual "family reasons" the Monday after Trump was sworn
in.
It now appears that there were three dossier versions, all coming via different unofficial
channels, outside the intel community channels which was therefore unvetted. Many suspect
they were all from the same source coming in from different angles to create a false
impression of legitimacy.
What we are going to find out when Trump declassifies everything after the mid-term
election, regardless of whether or not the Dems take the House and try to impeach him, is
that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act put in place after the revelations of
COINTELPRO wasn't adequate protection against the serious misuse of power.
The reason Trump won't declassify now is obvious – if you think screams of
interference/obstruction are loud now, just watch after he does that, something which would
harm the Reps in the mid-terms because any revelations buried within would take time to dig
out and would suppressed as much as possible by the incredibly biased media.
The DOJ/FBI stalling in providing the documents demanded by Congress is an obvious
stalling tactic in the hope that the Dems take the house in the mid-terms. If Clinton had won
as everyone expected, we'd have never heard about any of this which is why they thought they
could get away with it.
Yes he is a libral domestcally and nationalsit in forign policy -- that's why the term "national neoliberalism" looks appropriate
for definition of his policies
Notable quotes:
"... When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. ..."
"... Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink. ..."
"... Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have not been well served by the country's policymaking elites. ..."
"... Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables" who deserve what they will get. ..."
"... The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan. ..."
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his populist campaign pledges to protect
Americans from globalization. "For too long," he bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and
wealth to foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the American economy" and "bring
back millions of jobs." To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased
spending on the military, infrastructure and border control.
This same messy mix of free market fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed
budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market, pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda. His
supporters may soon discover that his professions of care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic
moves on trade -- empty.
Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's
proposed
replacement for Obamacare , which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their trust
in Trump's populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their votes would win them protection from the instabilities
and austerities of market-led globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.
Neoliberalism is a term most often used to critique market-fundamentalism rather than to define a particular policy agenda. Nonetheless,
it is most useful to understand neoliberalism's policy implications in terms of 10 norms that have defined its historical practice.
These norms begin with
trade liberalization and extend to
the encouragement of exports;
enticement of foreign investment;
reduction of inflation;
reduction of public spending;
privatization of public services;
deregulation of industry and finance;
reduction and flattening of taxes;
restriction of union organization;
and, finally, enforcement of property and land ownership.
Politicians don't necessarily have to profess faith in all of these norms to be considered neoliberal. Rather, they have to buy
into neoliberalism's general market-based logic and its attendant promise of opportunity.
When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more
neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. This conclusion will likely surprise his supporters, especially in light
of Trump's assaults on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite these attacks, however,
Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial
industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions.
In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently.
In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism,
and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his
address
to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort
to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation
task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to
shrink.
Since so much of Trump's agenda aligns with the long-standing ambitions of the Republican Party, it is likely that Trump will
be able to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to pass strictly neoliberal
legislation. Unlike his approach to trade, which congressional Republicans will probably scuttle, there is little reason to doubt
that we will see new legislation that privatizes public lands, overturns Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street regulations, cuts taxes
on business, makes organizing unions difficult, and allows big landowners to develop, mine, log, and shoot without restraint. For
all the animosity that may exist between the Trump administration and Republican congressmen, the two groups share a neoliberal vision
of the world.
From his new budget proposal we also know that Trump plans to continue the neoliberal assault on social service provisions --
such as the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act -- as well as public broadcasting, arts funding, scientific research and foreign
aid. As Trump vowed to Congress, he intends to implement a plan in which "Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use
of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts." Moreover, the money he does want to spend will be expended on military and
infrastructure projects that will almost certainly be organized around public-private partnerships that will fill the coffers of
Trump's business cronies.
What does Trump's neoliberal agenda mean for those whose discontent with globalization gave him the presidency? Nothing good.
The irony here is that the same neoliberalism that Trump plans to strengthen created the conditions that allowed him to enter the
White House. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was
for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have
not been well served by the country's policymaking elites.
Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between
his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's
voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables"
who deserve what they will get. Going forward, all of those who want to resist the President's agenda must engage those left
behind by neoliberalism and provide them with an economic vision that addresses their very real concerns. After all, Trump's administration
will probably strengthen the forces that have hurt these citizens, and they will need representatives who are genuinely concerned
with their well-being if our political turmoil is to be put to rest.
Don't let his trade policy fool you: Trump is a neoliberal
(2/2) I think the truth is that many of these people are too far gone mentally and emotionally to ever come around to the "correct"
way of thinking (which is to say, they have been so brainwashed by reacting to facile nonsense like "liberty" and "freedom" that
they will believe anything as long as the argument is couched in those terms, despite the fact that when they vote they are indeed
consigning themselves and the rest of the country to a world without those very freedoms for anybody who's not supposedly "one
of them").
A great man once famously said "Conscience do cost." And boy, does it. Liberals need to get over their conscience once and
for all, and push back against conservatives the way conservatives have been for decades, but that can only happen if we are honest
about who we are arguing with, and call them out, boldly and proudly, on their intellectual failings.
(1/2) It's clear the authors don't expose themselves to right-wing news outlets. Far too much is made in liberal media about the
"deplorables" and how they feel suffocated by the economy (or more realistically, by the natural ebb and flow of capitalism),
but they belie the fact that so much of modern conservatism is more about being anti-liberal than it is about any sort of pro-conservative
ideology. The "deplorable" moniker has been adapted and co-opted by conservatives and is now worn proudly as a badge of honor
(in the same way "fake news" began as a liberal criticism of specific, deliberately-misleading media targeted towards the right,
but is now a term used almost exclusively by the right to blanket-describe literally any media that they disagree with). Any criticisms
of Trump are immediately met with criticisms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Democrats in general. Bring up the KKK's support
of Trump 3 months ago? They'll bring up how the KKK was invented by Democrats 150 years ago.
The authors are too nice/professional to say it, but liberals need to stop handling conservatives with kid gloves and start
calling them what they are: rubes. Because it's not enough that they vote against their own self-interest and the interests of
the country, they take it one further and are actively gleeful in depriving liberals of anything liberals might value. Conversely,
most liberals I know and read online don't have an active hatred of conservatives, instead they have compassion and want to educate
them, and I suppose the thought is that if only enough of these articles get written, they'll eventually come around.
Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a
time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under.
And here you have it. This is how Trump got elected. The Bernibots are the unwitting agent that gave us Trump. And they
are planing on doubling down
The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It
was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban
culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan.
It is quite possible that Trump can win again in these areas despite implementing neoliberal policies. And it isn't that Democrats
don't have an economic message, they do. But it is one that includes and supports a much wider cultural base and one that many
of that WWC that voted for Trump don't want to hear.
I-Myslef 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT
NO. The Rust Belt was handed over to him by Bernie and non stop assault on Clinton and trade ...
We're at a point now where it's really difficult to have an intelligent conversation, a
serious discussion, a rational debate about this stuff.
The reason being that the John Brennans of the world and the lib-Dem-media-neocon mob of
which he is a member, which now routinely traffic in hyperventilating accusations of treason,
have forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.
Having concocted the conspiracy-fantasy of Trump being a puppet of Putin and having
contrived a farcical criminal investigation of imaginary "collusion," that same mob staged
the latest ludicrous meltdown -- over Trump's bumbling, stumbling press conference in
Helsinki with the Evil Monster Putin.
The only appropriate response now to people like John Brennan and his cabal of fools is
sarcasm, mockery, and contempt. They are beyond the reach of reason or evidence or facts.
Indeed, they have zero interest in evidence or facts. They simply emote and spew.
The main question in my mind is this: are the John Brennans of the world really stupid
enough to believe their vicious nonsense or are they so hopelessly dishonest and lacking in
conscience that they propagate poisonous falsehoods for the simple reason they know it
advances their political agenda of delegitimizing Trump's presidency.
I'm guessing more the second than the first.
And if in the process, they whip up an atmosphere of venomous hysteria and damage
U.S.-Russia relations to the point where scholars like Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer
call the environment as dangerous as that which existed at the time of the U.S.-Soviet Cuban
missile crisis and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves their Doomsday Clock to two
minutes before midnight (as recently happened) well, you gotta break some eggs to make an
omelette, right?
Honest to God, the dimension and character of this vast circus of corruption and lies is
breathtaking. It's downright freaking biblical.
"Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian
asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in
2003, the intel community, is your same source today."
Growing up as I did in the Nixon/Vietnam era, I developed a skepticism of the 'official'
story, something that served me well through Iran contra, incubator babies being tossed to
the floor, and WMD's (a skepticism reinforced at the time by Scott Ritter, among others). As
I recall, the WMD story was less a failure of intelligence as much as an administration
insisting on so-called 'stovepiped' intelligence to sell their war to an American public
through a mostly compliant MSM.
Regardless, my conclusion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is a result of my belief that
Trump- who has yet to disclose the financial information that would disprove that belief- is
reliant on Russian money, some or all of it organized crime related, to sustain his 'empire',
and that there is significant overlap between the Russian mob and the Russian government.
His actions as president haven't done anything to dispel me of my belief that he is a
'Russian asset', including his traitorous behavior this past week.
"... It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of "resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on, promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018. ..."
"... But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times ..."
"... On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin." ..."
"... Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged. ..."
"... New York Magazine ..."
"... Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That mouth has to cover his ass. ..."
"... Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election. ..."
"... Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two administrations. ..."
"... Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire. One way or another, the empire will strike back." ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
He accuses Trump of treason. But what's his bluster really about?
•
It isn't a pretty face, but one scarred from a dark past, repackaged now by the frenzy of
"resistance." Accusing Donald Trump recklessly, implying he knows more than he lets on,
promising redemption: John Brennan is the face of American politics in 2018.
But before all that, Brennan lived in a hole about as far down into the deep state as
one can dwell while still having eyes that work in the sunlight. He was director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. He was Obama's counterterrorism advisor, helping the president decide who
to kill every week, including American citizens. He spent 25 years at the CIA, and helped shape
the violent policies of the post-9/11 Bush era. He was a fan of torture and extrajudicial
killing to the point that a 2012 profile of him was entitled, "The Seven Deadly Sins of John
Brennan." Another writer called Brennan "the most lethal bureaucrat of all time, or at least
since Henry Kissinger." Today, however, a New York Times puff piece sweeps all that
away as a "troubling inheritance."
On Twitter this week, Brennan cartoonishly declaimed, "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It
was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the
pocket of Putin."
Because it is 2018, Brennan was never asked to explain exactly how a press conference
exceeds the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution sets for impeachment,
nor was he asked to lay a few cards on the table showing what Putin has on Trump. No,
Brennan is a man of his times, all bluster and noise, knowing that so long as he says what
a significant part of the country apparently believes -- that the president of the United
States is under the control of the Kremlin -- he will never be challenged.
Brennan slithers alongside those like Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker who said Trump is
controlled by Russia, columnists in the New York Times who called him a traitor, an
article (which is fast becoming the Zapruder film of Russiagate) in New York Magazine
echoing former counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in speculating that Trump met Putin
as his handler, and another former intelligence officer warning that "we're on the cusp of
losing the constitutional republic forever."
Brennan's bleating has the interesting side effect of directing attention away from who was
watching the front door as the Russians walked in to cause what one MSNBC analyst described as
a mix of Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht. During the 2016 election, Brennan was head of the CIA.
His evil twin, James Clapper, who also coughs up Trump attacks for nickels these days, was
director of national intelligence. James Comey headed the FBI, following Robert Mueller into
the job. Yet the noise from that crowd has become so loud as to drown out any questions about
where they were when they had the duty to stop the Russians in the first place.
The excuse that "everybody believed Hillary would win" is in itself an example of collusion:
things that now rise to treason, if not acts of war, didn't matter then because Clinton's
victory would sweep them all under the rug. Only after Clinton lost did it become necessary
to create a crisis that might yet be inflated (it wasn't just the Russians, as originally
thought, it was Trump working with them) to justify impeachment. Absent that need, Brennan
would have disappeared alongside other former CIA directors into academia or the lucrative
consulting industry. Instead he's a public figure with a big mouth because he has to be. That
mouth has to cover his ass.
Brennan is part of the whole-of-government effort to overturn the election.
Remember how recounts were called for amid (fake) allegations of vote tampering? Constitutional
scholars proposed various Hail Mary Electoral College scenarios to unseat Trump. Lawsuits
claimed the Emoluments Clause made it illegal for Trump to even assume office. The media set
itself the goal of impeaching the president. On cue, leaks poured out implying the Trump
campaign worked with the Russian government. It is now a rare day when the top stories are not
apocalyptic, rocketed from Raw Story to the Huffington Post to the New York Times .
Brennan, meanwhile, fans the media's flames with a knowing wink that says "You wait and see.
Soon it's Mueller time."
Yet despite all the hard evidence of treason that only Brennan and his supine
journalists seem to see, everyone appears resigned to have a colluding Russian agent running
the United States. You'd think it would be urgent to close this case. Instead, Brennan
admonishes us to wait out an investigative process that's been underway now through two
administrations.
The IRS, meanwhile, has watched Trump for decades (they've seen the tax docs), as have
Democratic and Republican opposition researchers, the New Jersey Gaming Commission, and various
New York City real estate bodies. Multiple KGB/FSB agents have defected and not said a word.
The whole Soviet Union has collapsed since the day that some claim Trump first became a Russian
asset. Why haven't the FBI, CIA, and NSA cottoned to anything in the intervening years? Why are
we waiting on Mueller Year Two?
If Trump is under Russian influence, he is the most dangerous man in American history. So
why isn't Washington on fire? Why hasn't Mueller indicted someone for treason? If this is Pearl
Harbor, why is the investigation moving at the pace of a mortgage application? Why is everyone
allowing a Russian asset placed in charge of the American nuclear arsenal to stay in power even
one more minute?
You'd think Brennan would be saying it is time to postpone chasing the indictments of
Russian military officers that will never see the inside of a courtroom, stop wasting months on
decades-old financial crimes unconnected to the Trump campaign, and quit delaying the real
stuff over a clumsy series of perjury cases. "Patriots: Where are you???" Brennan asked in a
recent tweet. Where indeed?
Is Brennan signaling that there is one step darker to consider? A
Reuters commentary observes that "Trump is haunted by the fear that a cabal of
national-security officers is conspiring in secret to overthrow him . Trump has made real
enemies in the realm of American national security. He has struck blows against their empire.
One way or another, the empire will strike back." James Clapper is confirming reports that
Trump was shown evidence of Putin's election attacks and did nothing. Congressman Steve Cohen
asked, "Where are our military folks? The Commander-in-Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Treason, traitor, coup, the empire striking back -- those are just words, Third World stuff,
clickbait, right? So the more pedestrian answer must then be correct. The lessons of Whitewater
and Benghazi learned, maybe the point is not to build an atmosphere of crisis leading to
something undemocratic, but just to have a perpetual investigation, tickled to life as needed
politically.
Because, maybe, deep down, Brennan (Clapper, Hayden, Comey, and Mueller) really do know that
this is all like flying saucers and cell phone cameras. At some point, the whole alien
conspiracy meme fell apart because somehow when everyone had a camera with them 24/7/365, there
were no more sightings and we had to admit that our fears had gotten the best of us. The threat
was inside us all along. It is now, too.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which
presidents can be impeached.
And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.
Trump's refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin's claim at Helsinki that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton's
campaign has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former
director of the CIA.
Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia's hacking of the DNC "an act of
war" comparable to Pearl Harbor.
The
New York Times
ran a story on the many now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is
blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.
Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: "Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.
Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy" have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream,
today it is the establishment itself bawling "Treason!"
What explains the hysteria?
The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is
hard to credit. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!" they have cried "Fascist!" too many times to be taken seriously.
A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought
them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.
Other commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.
If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the
levers of power ever again.
Using Occam's razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America's elites have been driven
over the edge by Trump's successes and their failures to block him.
Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme
Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.
Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along
with Vladimir Putin.
"Over our dead bodies!" the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.
Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin's poodle, fascist, demagogue,
traitor, Nazi.
Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders whether the haters are considering the impact of the
words they so casually use. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs
far less toxic than this.
The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president's enemies, but the depth of their
determination to destroy him.
They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the
agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.
Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: "The Fake
News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war," he
tweeted. "They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I'll probably have a good relationship with Putin."
Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine
U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin's pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie
Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.
Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.
Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and
conflicts with Russia and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this
country.
Yet should he attempt to carry out his agenda -- to get out of Syria, pull troops from Germany, and take a second look
at NATO's Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never
heard of -- he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.
This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.
By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump
is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most: irrelevance.
For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a
President and Divided America Forever
. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators
writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
It was a remarkable moment in a remarkable press conference. President Donald Trump had just
finished a controversial summit meeting in Helsinki with his Russian counterpart Vladimir
Putin, and
the two were talking to the media . Jeff Mason, a political affairs reporter with Reuters,
stood up and asked Putin a question pulled straight out of the day's headlines: "Will you
consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand
jury?"
The "12 Russian officials" Mason spoke of were military intelligence officers accused of
carrying out a series of cyberattacks against various American-based computer networks
(including those belonging to the Democratic National Committee), the theft of emails and other
data, and the release of a significant portion of this information to influence the outcome of
the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The names and organizational affiliations of these 12
officers were contained in a detailed 29-page indictment prepared by special
prosecutor Robert Mueller, and subsequently made public by Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein on July 13 -- a mere three days prior to the Helsinki summit.
Vladimir Putin responded, "We have an existing agreement between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty, that dates back to 1999, the mutual
assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently."
Putin then discussed the relationship between this agreement -- the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty -- and the Mueller indictment. "This treaty has specific legal procedures," Putin
noted, that "we can offer the appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller. He can
use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we
would interrogate, we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy
to some crimes and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States."
In the
uproar that followed the Trump-Putin press conference , the exchange between Mason and
Putin was largely forgotten amidst invective over Trump's seeming public capitulation on the
issue of election interference. "Today's press conference in Helsinki," Senator John McCain
observed afterwards in a typical comment, "was one of the most disgraceful performances by an
American president in memory."
It took an
interview with Putin after the summit concluded , conducted by Fox News's Chris Wallace, to
bring the specific issue of the 12 indicted Russians back to the forefront and give it context.
From Putin's perspective, this indictment and the way it was handled by the United States was a
political act. "It's the internal political games of the United States. Don't make the
relationship between Russia and the United States -- don't hold it hostage of this internal
political struggle. And it's quite clear to me that this is used in the internal political
struggle, and it's nothing to be proud of for American democracy, to use such dirty methods in
the political rivalry."
Regarding the indicted 12, Putin reiterated the points he had made earlier to Jeff Mason.
"We -- with the United States -- we have a treaty for assistance in criminal cases, an existing
treaty that exists from 1999. It's still in force, and it works sufficiently. Why wouldn't
Special Counsel Mueller send us an official request within the framework of this agreement? Our
investigators will be acting in accordance with this treaty. They will question each individual
that the American partners are suspecting of something. Why not a single request was filed?
Nobody sent us a single formal letter, a formal request."
There is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which makes all the calls for
Trump to demand the extradition of the 12 Russians little more than a continuation of the
"internal political games" Putin alluded to in his interview. There is, however, the treaty
that Putin referenced at both the press conference and during the Wallace interview.
Signed in Moscow on June 17, 1999, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty calls for the
"prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes" by both parties "in accordance with the
provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a
crime under the laws of both Parties."
It should be noted that the indicted 12 have not violated any Russian laws. But the Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty doesn't close the door on cooperation in this matter. Rather, the
treaty notes that "The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance
where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the
laws of the Requested Party."
It specifically precludes the process of cooperating from inferring a right "on the part of
any other persons to obtain evidence, to have evidence excluded, or to impede the execution of
a request." In short, if the United States were to avail itself of the treaty's terms, Russia
would not be able to use its cooperation as a vehicle to disrupt any legal proceedings underway
in the U.S.
The legal assistance that the treaty facilitates is not inconsequential. Through it, the
requesting party can, among other things, obtain testimony and statements from designated
persons; receive documents, records, and other items; and arrange the transfer of persons in
custody for testimony on the territory of the requesting party.
If the indictment of the 12 Russians wasn't the "dirty method" used in a domestic American
"political rivalry" that Putin described, one would imagine that Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein would have availed himself of the opportunity to gather additional evidence
regarding the alleged crimes. He would also have, at the very least, made a request to have
these officers appear in court in the United States to face the charges put forward in the
indictment. The treaty specifically identifies the attorney general of the United States "or
persons designated by the Attorney General" as the "Central Authority" for treaty
implementation. Given the fact that Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters
pertaining to the investigation by the Department of Justice into allegations of Russian
meddling in the 2016 election, the person empowered to act is Rosenstein.
There are several grounds under the treaty for denying requested legal assistance, including
anything that might prejudice "the security or other essential interests of the Requested
Party." However, it also requires that the reasons for the any denial of requested assistance
be put in writing. Moreover, prior to denying a request, the Requested Party "shall consult
with the Central Authority of the Requesting Party to consider whether legal assistance can be
given subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. If the Requesting Party accepts legal
assistance subject to these conditions, it shall comply with the conditions."
By twice raising the treaty in the context of the 12 Russians, Putin has clearly signaled
that Russia would be prepared to proceed along these lines.
If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia to
either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to
War .
Very cogent analysis. Putin, who's incredibly well briefed, knew exactly what he was
offering, and thought that by doing so, would force the DoJ/Mueller to either take him up on
his offer or otherwise display the overt politicism of the indictments. But the American
anti-Trump mindhive is so completely addled, they of course miss the point entirely. The
absence of reason among the anti-Trump/anti-Russia collective is truly something to behold
– it's scary.
The request V. Putin proposed and Scot Ritter writes about, if send to Russia, would be
equivalent to 'go and whistle' and would be treated the same way the Russians treat the
requests from Poland to return the remains of the Polish plane that crashed in controversial
and strange circumstances near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. They, the Russians, did not return
the remains of the plane up until today and the place where the plane crashed they bulldozed
the ground and paved with very thick layer of concrete.
Such request would only give the Russians propaganda tools to delay and dilute any
responsibility from the Russian side and at the end they would blame the USA for the whole
mess with no end to their investigation, because they would investigate until the US
investigators would drop dead. Anybody who seriously thinks about V.
Putin offer to investigate anything with Russia should first have his head examined by a
very good, objective, and politically neutral head specialist.
"If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia
to either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump."
That was one long-winded way of recognizing that Putin just told the US biparty
establishment behind the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria to put up or shut up.
I don't think that Pres Putin has anything to lose here.
"ARTICLE 4 DENIAL OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE
The Central Authority of the Requested Party may deny legal assistance if:
(1) the request relates to a crime under military law that is not a crime under general
criminal law;
(2) the execution of the request would prejudice the security or other essential interests
of the Requested Party; or "whether accurate or not the treaty permits a denial of request,
if said requests threaten Russian security."
Almost by definition, an investigation interrogation by the US of the personnel in
question because said questioning might very well stray into other areas , unrelated to the
hacking charge. Now Pres. Putin has played two cards: a treaty is in place that deals with
criminal matters between the two states and surely must have known that and should have
already made the formal requests in conjunction with the treaty or he didn't know either way,
the rush to embarrass the president may very well backfire. As almost everything about this
investigation has.
Right! That's not going to happen .the DOJ has no proof .their indictment was a ploy to
queer any deal with Russia. Anybody that believes anything the 'intelligence' agencies say,
without proof, is an idiot.
"... Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition. ..."
"... When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically. ..."
"... "It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world." ..."
"... "Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia." ..."
"... Jack Hunter is the former political editor of ..."
Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria
And like his father, the senator found himself on the wrong end of the media mob this week.
When Mitt Romney called Russia America's "
number
one geopolitical foe
" during the 2012 election campaign, Barack Obama
mocked
him:
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Vice President Joe Biden
dismissed
Romney as a "Cold War holdover." Hillary Clinton
said
Romney was "looking backward." John Kerry
said
"Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching
Rocky IV
."
But that was then. This week the Cold War seemed to be back in full force for many former Obama supporters, as
President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of 12 Russian agents
being indicted
for
allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.
In the midst of this hysteria, Senator Rand Paul was
asked
by CNN's Jake
Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling.
"They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian
elections or the Russian election," Paul
replied
. "So all countries that can
spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try." Paul insisted that U.S.
and Russian meddling are not "morally equivalent," but said we must still take into account that both nations do this.
That's when "Rand Paul" began trending on Twitter.
"Rand Paul is on TV delivering line after line of Kremlin narrative, and it is absolutely stunning to watch," read
one tweet
with nearly 5,000 likes. Another
tweet, just as popular,
said
, "Between
McConnell hiding election interference and Rand Paul defending it, looks like Russia's already annexed Kentucky." A Raw
Story headline on Paul's CNN interview read, "
Stunned
Jake Tapper explains why NATO exists to a Russia-defending Rand Paul
."
But was Paul really "defending" Russia? Was he even defending Russian meddling in U.S. elections? Or was he merely
trying to pierce through the hysteria and portray American-Russian relations in a more accurate and comprehensive
context -- something partisans left and right won't do and the mainstream media is too lazy to attempt?
Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition.
When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created "
blowback
"
that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul
didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there.
We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
No one in the GOP wanted to hear what Ron Paul had to say because it challenged and largely rebutted Republicans'
entire political identity at the time. Paul was roundly denounced. FrontPageMag's David Horowitz called him a "
disgrace
."
RedState
banned
all Paul supporters.
The American Conservative
's Jim Antle would
recall
in 2012: "The optics were
poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party
likely disagreed with him . Support for the war was not only nearly unanimous within the GOP, but bipartisan."
Rand Paul now poses a similar challenge to Russia-obsessed Democrats. Contra Jake Tapper sagely explaining "why NATO
exists" to a supposedly ignoramus Paul, as the liberal Raw Story headline framed it, here's what the senator actually
said:
There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative.
It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had
Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism
will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically.
Do you think Jake Tapper Googled "George Kennan"? That's about as likely as Giuliani Googling "blowback."
"It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul
told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at
understanding and trying to have peace in our world."
As for Russian spying -- was Paul just blindly defending that, too? Or did he make an important point in noting both
sides do it?
"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the
New York Times
reported in February. "But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert
operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view."
The
Times
continued: "'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something
bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he
was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations
historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'"
The U.S. will no doubt keep meddling in foreign elections. Russia will do the same, just as it did during the
Obama administration and years prior
. The cries against diplomacy and for war will ebb, flow, flip, and flop,
depending on who sits in the White House and how it makes the screaming partisans feel. Many Democrats who view Trump's
diplomacy with Russia as dangerous would have embraced it (and did) under Obama. Many Republicans who hail Trump's
diplomatic efforts
wouldn't
have done so were he a Democrat. President Hillary Clinton could be having the same meeting with Putin and
most Democrats would be fine with it, Russian meddling or no meddling.
So many
headlines
attempted to portray Paul as the partisan hack on Sunday when the opposite is actually true. It's the left, including
much of the media, that's now turned hawkish towards Russia for largely partisan reasons, while Paul was making the same
realist
foreign policy
arguments
regarding
NATO
and
U.S.-Russia relations
long before the Trump presidency.
Responding to Romney's anti-Russia, anti-Obama comments in 2012, Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace,
told
the
New York Times
, "There's a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to
solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem." Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through
these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia."
But think they won't and sabers they'll rattle, as yesterday's villains become today's heroes and vice versa.
There's the elephant in the room, of course. Nobody seems to want to touch it yet, but everybody knows that
Israeli meddling in US elections puts Russian meddling in the shade. Still, it's fascinating watching the
reporting and waiting to see who will break the silence.
In the meantime, wake me up when there's something
called "the Russia-American Political Action Committee" in DC. Wake me up when US politicians vie to win its
favor, as they vie to win the favor of AIPAC, and win the huge financial contributions that result from getting
its support. Wake me up when Russian oligarchs contribute even a fraction of what Israel donors like Sheldon
Adelson already contribute to US political campaigns – and wake me up when they get results like an American
president moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or an America president sending American troops to stand between
Israel and its enemies Russia may have moved a few thousand votes here or there, but Israel gets American
politicians to send America's children to die in Middle East wars. At the moment, Russia can only dream of
meddling with that degree of success.
Yep – American elections have been corrupted by foreign countries for a long time. Russia's only problem is
that it hasn't learned who to pay off, and how much. Next time Mr. Netanyahu visits Mr. Putin (and he visits
him fairly often), he can give him a few pointers. And then Mr. Putin will be invited to give speeches to joint
sessions of Congress. Just like Mr. Netanyahu. And freshmen US congressmen will be frog-marched to Russia for
instructions, just like they're already frog-marched to Israel.
Russia has been engaging in international espionage dating back at least to Peter the Great. As such, they play
the game as well as, or possibly better, than anyone. They, like we, will do what is necessary-even to the
point of injecting themselves in the internal affairs of another country–if they deem it in their interest to
do so or, as the cliche has it, "in the interest of state". Not very nice but–that's the way the game is
played.
Thank you, Rand Paul and Mr. Hunter, for injecting some much needed sanity into this debate.
There is no need to demonize the Russians. Their country has
national interests and goals. If they are patriots, the Russians will seek to advance those interests and
goals.
We also have interests and goals, and if we are patriots, we seek to advance them (though we disagree on
what our real interests are and what our goals should be).
When our interests concide with that of Russia we collaborate. When they clash, we seek to undermine each
other.
The Russians seem to have been doing it, as their interests now clash with ours. Nothing to be worked out
about. That's how the game is played.
Which does not mean that we should defend ourselves strenuously from such undermining. And the President is
precisely tasked with defending this country and advance its interests. This he seems to be unable to do.
Do not hate the Russians. Do not demonize them. But be aware of what they are doing, because we are NOT in a
Kumbayah moment with them.
Well done, Mr. Hunter. It's a shame that the Pauls' position on foreign policy is not shared by ostensibly
"libertarian" commentators who value DC cocktail parties above all principles.
The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement.
The real problem with Russia is that it exists, and it is too big for us to control. The real problem with
Putin is that he is the first strong leader Russia has had since the fall of the Soviet Union, and he is
messing up our plans for world hegemony.
As one who grew up during the Cold War (the real one) and lived
through the whole thing (the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, the crushing of Hungary, communists behind every
door and under every bed), I find it very hard to take all the current hysteria about Russia very seriously.
Sane, reasonable comments. Totally agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, since we live in a
3-ring media circus, so few people will listen or pay heed. In a world possibly even more dangerous than any
time since the Cold War, the act of demonizing one of the two greatest nuclear powers on earth is surely
madness.
CNN etc. headlines are not even thinly veiled editorials against Trump. Not related to just publishing the
news. But telling readers how to think. Mainstream media has an M&M type coating. Remove the outer shell and
you find the good old boys and girls as ever-lurking and ever vigilant Neocon Nation pushing their one and only
agenda on the American people. They are insatiable as long as they do not do the fighting and dying. Stay tough
Trump and realize short of complete capitulation you cannot satisfy these people.
Donald Trump took a step towards peace. Of course, not everyone likes this. As can be seen, Donald Trump has
many enemies, even among Republicans. They want war. These are people dangerous to America and the world.
What is better: peace with Russia, or a global nuclear war?
The Book of Revelation warns: "And another horse, fiery red, came out, and the one who rode it was granted
permission to take peace from the earth, so that people would butcher one another, and he was given a huge
sword." (6:4) "The great sword" – what does it mean?
Jesus gave many important details: "Terrors [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] unusual phenomena [σημεια –
unusual occurrences, transcending the common course of nature] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will
be [εσται]." (Luke 21:11)
Some ancient manuscripts contain the words "and frosts" [και χειμωνες] (we call this today "nuclear
winter"), and in Mark 13:8 "and disorders" [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos). There will be
also significant tremors, food shortages and epidemics along the length and breadth of the regions as a result
of using this weapon.
This weapon will also cause climate change, catastrophic drought and global famine. (cf. Revelation 6:5, 6)
So here we have a complete picture of the consequences of the global nuclear war. Is there any sense in
speeding up this war?
He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the
Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power,
as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit.
I'm glad to see adults in the room, at long last. The Sixties are over, baby. Good riddance.
"Of course the Paul's are right as they always are."
Always?
"A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a
pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national
holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time
again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate
Whitey Day."[2][16][17] During the 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns, Paul and his supporters said
that the passages denouncing King were not a reflection of Paul's own views because he considers King a
"hero".[18][19][20″
That last sentence is a hoot. Talk about "hysteria", but, go ahead, repeat Paul's lies that he knew nothing
about his own newsletter.
Johann:
"The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement."
Like the NRA, The American Conservative needs to open "The Russian Conservative" chapters in Putin's
conservative Russia to protect Putin's murderous government.
It could be that the "Left", whatever that is in addlepated minds, merely desires a little real politik in
our relations with relations with Putin's Russia.
It's hard to tell the difference between ex-KGB Putin and ex-republicans like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
The latter two make "full of crap" seem mild praise.
Off the top of my head, a few egregious examples in which the US government has "meddled" in other countries
during the last 100 years:
Mexico (Woodrow Wilson had thousands of US troops occupying Mexico until calling
them back to "meddle" in Europe's War to End All Wars, setting the stage for an even worse war 20 years later.)
Russia (Woodrow Wilson used the US military to "meddle" in the Russian revolution after the War to End All
Wars.)
Korea (undeclared war)
Vietnam (undeclared war)
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and much of the rest of Central and South America.
Iran (helped overthrow its government in the 1950s and install the Shah of Iran, setting the stage for the
Iranian revolution.)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt.
Yemen (huge humanitarian disaster as I write this. US government fully supporting head-chopping Saudi
Arabians in their campaign to starve, sicken and blow to bits hundreds of thousands of people. Support includes
US planes in-flight fueling of Saudi fighter/bomber jets.)
And let us not forget the enormous "meddling" in numerous US government elections and policy debates by . .
. Israel.
"He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and
foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a
declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a
pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit."
It's important to understand what the US intelligence community is calling "interference in our election."
There has been no accusation that the Russians hacked into our electronic voting and changed results. Rather,
they did what we have done in other countries–the Russians ran an influence campaign. They bought ads and
created bots to spread the word. This is so utterly tame . . . there is nothing out of the ordinary US playbook
here.
Hacking the DNC server and revealing underhanded DNC doings? Hey, that's on the DNC for being both venal and
incompetent.
Anybody in 1962 shouting wild paranoid conspiracy theories about
THERE ARE RUSSIAN SPIES EVERYWHERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA
These people in 1962 would be (correctly) dismissed as Right Wing conspiracy kooks, now it's just standard
Lib Dems, RINOs, Neo Conservatives and fake news lying press.
We commissioned this Farstar comics with this theme – I mean like who in 2018 is really scared that Russians
like Anna Kournikova are going to take over America –
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is acting, but not on principle or in good faith. If he really wanted to stand against
manufactured hysteria, he would not accept the US "intelligence" agency claims and refer to their record – e.g.
on Iraq and before regarding stability of the Soviet Union – he would question the staggering difficulties of
attribution and forensics for networked, digital attacks (the main reason why any claims about who hacked whom
have to be read with skepticism), he would point to the corruption of our foreign politics by Saudi and Israeli
interests and money within the Trump-Kushner clan, and both parties, and he would compare the alleged – and
allegedly ineffectual – attempts to influence an already ridiculous election to the very real, pervasive and
corrupting impact of GOP voter disenfranchisement and bipartisan gerrymandering in service of incumbents and
their networks.
Rand Paul is the man who was going to stand against the Haspel appointment. He is a phoney,
but he serves as a weather vane for niche politicians on how the winds are turning.
Nothing about New START, no word about how George Bush made a promise that might have been in bad faith, how
Gorbachev was foolish enough to accept it, and how Bill Clinton broke it across the board, and piled on by
targeting Serbia in the Balkan conflict. Kennan did not refer to the Ukraine on his missive.
If Rand Paul is our last best hope, we are in deep trouble.
Jack Hunter " Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should
demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling."
(0:01) TAPPER: 48 hours ago the US government, the Trump
administration, said the top Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a massive hack to affect the
US election. How much do you want President Trump to try to hold Putin accountable for that?
PAUL: I think really we mistake our response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians.
They're another country. They're going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They're going to interfere in our
elections. We also do the same. Dov Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the
last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it. What we
need to do is to make sure that our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten
partisan and it's all about partisan politics we have forgotten that really the most important thing is the
integrity of our election. And there are things we can do and things that I've advocated: Making sure it's
decentralized all the way down to the precinct level; making sure we don't store all the data in one place,
even for a state, and that there's a back-up way so that someone in a precinct can say, 'Two thousand people
signed in, this was the vote tally I sent to headquarters.' There's a lot of ways that we can back-up our
election. Advertising, things like that, it's tricky. Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some
ways, but I think at the bottom line we wanted the Russians to admit it. They're not going to admit it in the
same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian elections. So
all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they
try."
TAPPER: It sounds as though you are saying that the United States has done the equivalent of what the
Russians did in the 2016 election, and it might sound to some viewers that you're offering that statement as an
excuse for what the Russians did.
PAUL: No, what I would say is it's not morally equivalent, but I think in their mind it is. And I think it's
important to know in your adversary's mind the way that they perceive things. I do think that they react to our
interference in both their elections. One of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found
her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm
not saying it's justified
TAPPER: But surely, Senator Paul, the United States has never done what the Russians did.
PAUL: I'm not saying they're equivalent, or morally equivalent, but I am saying that this is the way that
the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy, or better reactions, we have to know
their response. But it's not just interference in elections that I think has caused this nationalism in Russia.
Also, I think part of the reason is is we promised them when James Baker, at the end when Germany reunified, we
promised them that we wouldn't go one inch eastward of Germany with NATO, and we've crept up on the borders,
and we still have neocons in both parties who want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO.
That's very, very provocative and it has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan
predicted this. In 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction, he said, if you push
NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you
may get someone like a Putin, basically.
George Kennan predicted the rise of Putin in 1998. And so we have to understand that for every action we
have, there is a reaction. And it's a big mistake for us -- not to say that we're morally equivalent or that
anything that Russia does is justified – but if we don't realize that everything we do has a reaction, we're
not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in the world (3:38)
Madeleine Albright is a well known neocon who was instrumental in organizing the invasion of
Yugoslavia
Notable quotes:
"... Every reader will conclude that his or her political enemies fit the bill. ..."
"... And, unfortunately, I fear, she, in one fell swoop of prose, both fuels the fires of division while exiling the book to practical irrelevance. In the end, she will likely only energize both political extremes, and, I suspect, the reader ratings of this book will ultimately reflect that. ..."
"... She notes, for starters, that the Fascist epithet may be appropriate for the US today for reasons having more to do with economics than populism. The Fascist Party of Italy, which gave rise to general use of the term, was the ultimate merger of the corporate and political states. And that is, in fact, what has happened here in the US. ..."
"... The incorporation accelerated greatly during the dot-com 90s when young entrepreneurs were preaching disruption and libertarianism. It is ironic, indeed, that tech's "democratic" perspective has now produced among the biggest and most powerful corporations the world has ever known. And they pulled it off, actually, while the anti-trust regulators in both Republican and Democratic administrations stood by and watched. ..."
"... To me what we have today is not so much analogous to the Fascist or Nazi parties of the mid-20th Century as it is the power of the church in Medieval Europe. The kings and queens of Washington may wear the crowns, but it is the corporate "popes" of Wall Street and Silicon Valley that are really calling the shots. ..."
"... Neither party has defined an agenda that addresses the issues that originally brought Trump to power. And until that happens I believe Albright's Fascist warning will remain valid. ..."
This is a timely book by a brilliant person who had a front row seat to the tragedy that
was Europe in the Mid-20th Century. There is little doubt that the world is starting to look
fearfully like it did at the beginning of those dark hours, starting with the tyranny of
Hitler and Mussolini and culminating in the Cold War and the gulags of the Soviet Union.
Figuratively speaking, this is really three books. The first will be the most divisive and
may, in fact, quite unfortunately, relegate the book to practical irrelevance. The second
book is extremely insightful and informative. And the third book, honestly, is pure gold and
vintage Madeline Albright.
The first book begins with a contradiction. Albright openly acknowledges that Fascism has
become a meaningless epithet, hurled, as it is, by opposing politicians of every stripe and
at parents merely attempting to limit the cell phone usage of their children. She goes on to
defend the titular use of the term, however, by clarifying her use of the term: "To my mind,
a Fascist is someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or
group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are
necessary -- including violence -- to achieve his or her goals."
At that point, however, she hasn't really narrowed the list of politicians who qualify for
the pejorative label at all. Every reader will conclude that his or her political enemies
fit the bill. She seals the fate of this portion of the book, however, when she asks, on
page 4 of the book, " why, this far into the twenty-first century, are we once again talking
about Fascism?" And answers, "One reason, frankly, is Donald Trump. If we think of Fascism as
a wound from the past that had almost healed, putting Trump in the White House was like
ripping off the bandage and picking at the scab." And she goes on to make thinly veiled
comparisons between Trump, Mussolini, and Joseph McCarthy.
And, unfortunately, I fear, she, in one fell swoop of prose, both fuels the fires of
division while exiling the book to practical irrelevance. In the end, she will likely only
energize both political extremes, and, I suspect, the reader ratings of this book will
ultimately reflect that.
That is most unfortunate because without those opening pages this would be a truly
terrific book. It chronicles both relevant history and the recent past to a degree that few
other people on the planet could.
The second part of the book is devoted to an analysis of recent political events in
Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Venezuela, the Philippines, Russia, North Korea, and, of course, the
United States. All, to varying degrees, she maintains, are showing signs of a slide toward
Fascism and the decline of post-war liberal democracy. It is an informative analysis and
unless you are a political junkie, you will learn a lot.
In the third part of the book she truly hits her stride. She notes, for starters, that
the Fascist epithet may be appropriate for the US today for reasons having more to do with
economics than populism. The Fascist Party of Italy, which gave rise to general use of the
term, was the ultimate merger of the corporate and political states. And that is, in fact,
what has happened here in the US.
The incorporation of America has been going on since the conservative movement of the
1980s, however, and while Trump is carrying the corporate water at the moment, he can hardly
be blamed for allowing Wall Street and Silicon Valley to take control of Washington.
The incorporation accelerated greatly during the dot-com 90s when young entrepreneurs
were preaching disruption and libertarianism. It is ironic, indeed, that tech's "democratic"
perspective has now produced among the biggest and most powerful corporations the world has
ever known. And they pulled it off, actually, while the anti-trust regulators in both
Republican and Democratic administrations stood by and watched.
To me what we have today is not so much analogous to the Fascist or Nazi parties of
the mid-20th Century as it is the power of the church in Medieval Europe. The kings and
queens of Washington may wear the crowns, but it is the corporate "popes" of Wall Street and
Silicon Valley that are really calling the shots.
Which is why both parties, I think, should be fearful of whatever happens in the mid-term
elections. Be careful what you wish for. Neither party has defined an agenda that addresses
the issues that originally brought Trump to power. And until that happens I believe
Albright's Fascist warning will remain valid.
In the final chapters of the book Albright notes that putting American interests first
invites Russia, China, and others to do the same. And it is here that she lowers her partisan
guard (we all have one) and calls for unity through the recognition of our common humanity
and the rejection of extremism that favors one group over another.
It is here that she also seems to soften her position on ideals of post-war democratic
liberalism and focuses more on compassion, integrity, and fairness. I think of it as defining
a new standard of shared obligation and responsibility that includes those countries and
those people that aren't rushing to implement an Electoral College and to copy our form of
bare-knuckle individualism, but those are my words, not hers.
In the end she notes that spend her time on issues like: "purging excess money from
politics, improving civic education, defending journalistic independence, adjusting to the
changing nature of the workplace, enhancing inter-religious dialogue, and putting a saddle on
the bucking bronco we call the Internet." It's a perfect ending to what is a very good book
by an inspiring individual.
...Stuxnet, which was thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports of U.S.
attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such direct attacks on other governments to be akin
to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?
Few issues generate a bipartisan response in Washington. President Donald Trump's upcoming
summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is one.
Democrats who once pressed for détente with the Soviet Union act as if Trump will be
giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neoconservatives and other Republican hawks are equally
horrified, having pressed for something close to war with Moscow since the latter's annexation
of Crimea in 2014. Both sides act as if the Soviet Union has been reborn and Cold War has
restarted.
Russia's critics present a long bill of requirements to be met before they would relax
sanctions or otherwise improve relations. Putin could save time by agreeing to be an American
vassal.
Topping everyone's list is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was outrageous.
Protecting the integrity of our democratic system is a vital interest, even if the American
people sometimes treat candidates with contempt. Before joining the administration National
Security Adviser John Bolton even called Russian meddling "a casus belli , a true act of
war."
Yet Washington has promiscuously meddled in other nations' elections. Carnegie Mellon's Dov
H. Levin figured that between 1946 and 2000 the U.S. government interfered with 81 foreign
contests, including the 1996 Russian poll. Retired U.S. intelligence officers freely admit that
Washington has routinely sought to influence other nations' elections.
Yes, of course, Americans are the good guys and favor politicians and parties that the other
peoples would vote for if only they better understood their own interests -- as we naturally
do. Unfortunately, foreign governments don't see Uncle Sam as a Vestal Virgin acting on behalf
of mankind. Indeed, Washington typically promotes outcomes more advantageous to, well,
Washington. Perhaps Trump and Putin could make a bilateral commitment to stay out of other
nations' elections.
Another reason to shun Russia, argued Senator Rob Portman, is because "Russia still occupies
Crimea and continues to fuel a violent conflict in eastern Ukraine." Moscow annexed Crimea
after a U.S.-backed street putsch ousted the elected but highly corrupt Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. The territory historically was Russian, turned over to Ukraine most likely
as part of a political bargain in the power struggle following Joseph Stalin's death. A
majority of Crimeans probably wanted to return to Russia. However, the annexation was
lawless.
Rather like America's dismemberment of Serbia, detaching Kosovo after mighty NATO entered
the final civil war growing out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Naturally, the U.S. again had
right on its side -- it always does! -- which obviously negated any obligations created by
international law. Ever-virtuous Washington even ignored the post-victory ethnic cleansing by
Albanian Kosovars
Still, this makes Washington's complaints about Russia seem just a bit hypocritical: do as
we say, not as we do. In August 2008 John McCain expressed outrage over Russia's war with
Georgia, exclaiming: "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Apparently he
forgot that five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, with McCain's passionate support. Here,
too, the two presidents could agree to mutual forbearance.
Worse is the conflict in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, between the Ukrainian army and
separatists backed by Russia. Casualty estimates vary widely, but are in the thousands. Moscow
successfully weakened Kiev and prevented its accession to NATO. However, that offers neither
legal nor moral justification for underwriting armed revolt.
Alas, the U.S. again comes to Russia with unclean hands. Washington is supporting the brutal
war by Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Yemen. Area specialists agree that the
conflict started as just another violent episode in a country which has suffered civil strife
and war for decades. The Houthis, a tribal/ethnic/religious militia, joined with their
long-time enemy, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to oust his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur
Hadi. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi attacked to reinstall a pliable regime and win economic control. The
U.S. joined the aggressors . At least Russia could claim national security was at stake,
since it feared Ukraine might join NATO.
The "coalition" attack turned the Yemeni conflict into a sectarian fight, forced the Houthis
to seek Iranian aid, and allowed Tehran to bleed its Gulf rivals at little cost. Human rights
groups agree that the vast majority of civilian deaths and bulk of destruction have been caused
by Saudi and Emirati bombing, with Washington's direct assistance. The humanitarian crisis
includes a massive cholera epidemic. The security consequences include empowering al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the U.S. and Russian governments could commit to jointly forgo
supporting war for frivolous causes.
Human carnage and physical destruction are widespread in Syria. It will take years to
rebuild homes and communities; the hundreds of thousands of dead can never be replaced. Yet
Moscow has gone all out to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Heritage
Foundation's Luke Coffey and Alexis Mrachek demand that Moscow end its support for Assad "and
demonstrate a genuine willingness to work with the international community to bring a political
end to the Syrian civil war." The American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron urged "a true
Russian withdrawal from Syria, specifically ceding control of the Hmeymim airbase and
dismantling recent expansions to the Tartus naval facility."
But the U.S. is in no position to complain. Washington's intervention has been disastrous,
first discouraging a negotiated settlement, then promoting largely non-existent moderate
insurgents, backing radicals, including the al-Qaeda affiliate (remember 9/11!?) against Assad,
simultaneously allying with Kurds and Turks, and taking over the fight against the Islamic
State even though virtually everyone in the Mideast had reason to oppose the group.
At least Russia, invited by the recognized government, had a reason to be there. Moscow's
alliance with Syria dates back to the Cold War and poses no threat to America, which is allied
with Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. Washington also possesses military
facilities in Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. For most Middle Eastern countries Moscow is primarily
a bargaining chip to extort more benefits from America. Trump could propose that both countries
withdraw from Syria.
Coffey and Mracek also express outrage that Moscow "has weaponized its natural gas exports
to Europe, turning off the tap when countries dare go against its wishes." Russia's customers
should not fear coercion via cut-off. Of course, the U.S. never uses its economic power for
political ends. Other than to routinely impose economic sanctions on a variety of nations on
its naughty list. And to penalize not only American firms, but businesses from every other
nation .
Indeed, the Trump administration is insisting that every company in every country stop doing
business with Iran. The U.S. government will bar violators from the U.S. market or impose
ruinous fines on them. The Trump administration plans to sanction even its European allies,
those most vulnerable to Russian energy politics. Which suggests a modus vivendi that
America's friends likely would applaud: both Washington and Moscow could promise not to take
advantage of other nations' economic vulnerabilities for political ends.
Cyberwar is a variant of economic conflict. Heritage's Mracek cited "the calamitous
cyberattack, NotPetya," as "part of Russia's effort to destabilize Ukraine even further than in
the past." Yes, a criminal act. Of course, much the same could be said of Stuxnet, which was
thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports
of U.S. attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such
direct attacks on other governments to be akin to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in
a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?
Virtually everyone challenges Russia on human rights. Moscow falls far short, with Putin's
control of the media, manipulation of the electoral process, and violence against those
perceived as regime enemies. In this regard, at least, America is far better.
But many U.S. allies similarly fail this test. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has created an authoritarian state retaining merely the forms of democracy. Egypt's
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has constructed a tyranny more brutal than that of Hosni
Mubarak. Saudi Arabia's monarchy allows neither religious nor political freedom, and has grown
more repressive under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is not just Trump who remains
largely silent about such assaults on people's basic liberties. So do many of the president's
critics, who express horror that he would deal with such a man as Putin.
Moscow will not be an easy partner for the U.S. Explaining that "nobody wanted to listen to
us" before he took over, in March Putin declared: "You hear us now!" Compromise is inevitable,
but requires respect for both nations' interests. A starting point could be returning the two
nations' embassies to full strength and addressing arms control, such as the faltering
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and soon-expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A
larger understanding based on NATO ending alliance expansion in return for Russia withdrawing
from the conflict in the Donbas would be worth pursuing.
Neither the U.S. nor the Russian Federation can afford to allow their relations to
deteriorate into another Cold War. Russia is too important on too many issues, including acting
as a counterweight to China, the most serious geopolitical challenge to the U.S. Hopefully the
upcoming summit will begin the difficult process of rebuilding a working relationship between
Washington and Moscow.
Got my Economics Degree in 1971 – when they still taught the stuff. Maybe I
shouldn't, but I still go nuts when educated writers like yourself distort the origins of
Fascism. It was a three legged stool consisting of government, industry and labor. Taking
care of the working class was a key element. Also, being socialist, it was not market
oriented. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite with it's 'lump of labor' and unregulated
markets. It arose in defense of the crushing fist of western capitalism and, had it not
been taken over by dictators, might have done the world a lot of good. Other than that you
wrote a nice piece. Keep it up
DARAA, Syria – At first glance, all appears calm in this southern Syrian city where
protests first broke out seven years ago. Residents mill around shops in preparation for the
evening Iftar meal when they break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
But the tension is nonetheless palpable in this now government-controlled city. A few weeks
ago, Russian-brokered reconciliation talks in southern Syria fell apart when Western-backed
militants rejected a negotiated peace.
Whether there will now be a full-on battle for the south or not, visits last week to Syria's
three southern governorates, Daraa, Quneitra, and Suweida, reveal a startling possibility:
al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise -- the Nusra Front -- appears to be deeply entrenched alongside
these U.S.-backed militants in key, strategic towns and villages scattered throughout the
south.
U.S. media and think tanks obfuscate this fact by referring to all opposition fighters as
"rebels" or "moderates." Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the
Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.
So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most
potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply -- and conveniently -- been erased
from the Syrian battle map?
Discussions with Syrian military experts, analysts, and opposition fighters during my trip
revealed that Nusra is alive and kicking in the southern battlefields. The map below
specifically identifies areas in the south controlled by Nusra, but there are many more
locations that do not appear where Nusra is present and shares power with other militants.
Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly
fighting alongside the "Southern Front," a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded
by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC).
Specifics about the MOC aren't easy to come by, but sources inside Syria -- both opposition
fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) -- suggest the command center consists of
the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states.
They say the MOC supplies funds, weapons, salaries, intel, and training to the 54 militias,
many of which consist of a mere 200 or so fighters that are further broken down into smaller
groups, some only a few dozen strong.
SAA General Ahmad al-Issa, a commander for the frontline in Daraa, says the MOC is a
U.S.-led operation that controls the movements of Southern Front "terrorists" and is highly
influenced by Israel's strategic goals in the south of Syria -- one of which is to seize
control of its bordering areas to create a "buffer" inside Syrian territories.
How does he know this? Issa says his information comes from a cross-section of sources,
including reconciled/captured militants and intel from the MOC itself. The general cites MOC's
own rulebook for militants as an example of its Israel-centricity: "One, never threaten or
approach any Israeli border in any way. Two, protect the borders with (Israeli-occupied) Golan
so no one can enter Israel."
To illustrate the MOC's control over southern militants, Issa cites further regulations:
"three, never take any military action before clearing with MOC first. Four, if the MOC asks
groups to attack or stop, they must do so."
What happens if these rules are not upheld? "They will get their salaries cut," says
Issa.
The armed opposition groups supported by the MOC are mostly affiliated with the Free Syrian
Army (FSA), itself an ill-defined, highly fungible group of militants who have changed names
and affiliations with frequency during the Syrian conflict.
Over the course of the war, the FSA has fought
alongside the Nusra Front and ISIS -- some have even joined them. Today, despite efforts to
whitewash the FSA and Southern Front as "non-sectarian" and non-extremist , factions
like the Yarmouk Army, Mu'tazz Billah Brigade, Salah al-Din Division, Fajr al-Islam Brigade,
Fallujah al-Houran Brigade, the Bunyan al-Marsous grouping, Saifollah al-Masloul Brigade, and
others are currently occupying keys areas in Daraa in cooperation with the Nusra Front.
None of this is news to American policymakers. Even before the MOC was established in
February 2014, Nusra militants were fronting vital military maneuvers for the FSA. As one Daraa
opposition
activist explains: "The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an
agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don't want to frighten Jordan or
the West . Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the
FSA as their own."
Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top.
Says one FSA commander in Daraa: "In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don't tell the
(MOC) operations room about it."
It's highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate
on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this
reporter , CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why
Pentagon-vetted fighters' weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded: " We
don't 'command and control' these forces -- we only 'train and enable' them. Who they say
they're allying with, that's their business."
In practice, the U.S. doesn't appear to mind the Nusra affiliation -- regardless of the fact
that the group is a terror organization -- as long as the job gets done.
U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra's possession for many years now, including highly valued
TOW missiles , which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater. When
American weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands during the first or second year of a conflict, one
assumes simple errors in judgment. When the problem persists after seven years, however, it
starts to look like there's a policy in place to look the other way.
It's also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded
among U.S.-supported militias. The group, after all, is exempt from ceasefires, viewed as a
fair target for military strikes at all times.
In December 2015, UN
Security Council Resolution 2254 called for "Member States to prevent and suppress
terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known
as Da'esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the
Security Council" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the resolution makes clear that ceasefires
"will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups,
undertakings and entities."
This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the
south of Syria where Nusra fighters -- and "entities associated" with it -- are based. In
effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against
U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign
sponsors to take retaliatory measures.
That's why the Nusra Front doesn't show up on U.S. maps.
In an interview last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad blamed the sudden breakdown of
southern reconciliation efforts on "Israeli and American interference," which he says "put pressure on the terrorists in that
area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution."
Today, the Israeli border area with Syria is dotted with
Nusra and ISIS encampments, which Israel clearly
prefers over the Syrian army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. The Wall Street
Journal even
reported last year that Israel was secretly providing funding for salaries, food, fuel, and
munitions to militants across its border.
In early June, two former Islamist FSA members (one of them also a former Nusra fighter) in
Beit Jinn -- a strategic area bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Israel -- told me that Israel had
been paying their militia's salaries for a year before a reconciliation deal was struck with
the Syrian government. "Every month Israel would send us $200,000 to keep fighting," one
revealed. "Our leaders were following the outside countries. We were supported by MOC, they
kept supporting us till the last minute," he said.
Earlier that day, in the village of Hadar in the Syrian Golan, members of the Druze
community described a bloody Nusra
attack last November that killed 17: "All the people here saw how Israel helped Nusra
terrorists that day. They covered them with live fire from the hilltops to help Nusra take over
Hadar. And at the end of the fights, Israel takes in the injured Nusra fighters and
provides them with medical services," says Marwan Tawil, a local English teacher.
"The ceasefire line (Syrian-Israeli border) is 65 kilometers between here to Jordan, and
only this area is under the control of the SAA," explains Hadar's mayor. "Sixty kilometers is
with Nusra and Israel and only the other five are under the SAA."
Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has
actively
bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria's southern theater. As Israeli Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon famously explained
in 2016, "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic
State." To justify their interventions in the battle ahead, the U.S. and Israel claim that
Iranian and Hezbollah forces are present in the south, yet on the ground in Daraa and Quneitra,
there is no visible sight of either.
Multiple sources confirm this in Daraa, and insist that that there are only a handful of
Hezbollah advisors -- not fighters -- in the entire governorate.
So why the spin? "This is a public diplomacy effort to make the West look like they've
forced Iran and Hezbollah out of the south," explains General Issa.
The U.S., Israel, and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the
insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the
54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria. The end result is likely to be a
negotiated settlement peppered with a few "soft battles" to eject the more hardline
militants.
As one SAA soldier on the scene in Daraa tells me: "Fifty-four factions in a small area
shows weakness more than it shows strength." And their cooperation with the Nusra Front just
makes the targets on their backs even larger.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and
analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.
Credit:
Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock
The United States has adorned its president with extravagance that makes Roman emperors
appear frugal by comparison. And such visible signs of the deification of our president are complemented by legal
doctrines that echo Richard Nixon's once discredited claim to David Frost: "When the president does it, that means it is
not illegal."
These extra-constitutional developments reflect the transformation
of the United States from a republic, whose glory was liberty and whose rule of law was king, to an empire, whose glory
is global dominion and whose president is law. The Constitution's architects would be shocked to learn that contemporary
presidents play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner to any person on the planet deemed a threat to national
security on the basis of secret, untested evidence known only to the White House.
An empire demands a Caesar and blind obedience from its citizens. World leadership
through the global projection of military force cannot be exercised with checks and balances and a separation of powers
that arrests speed and invites debate. Napoleon lectured: "Nothing in war is more important than unity of command .
Better one bad general than two good ones." And Lord Tennyson, saluting the British Empire, versified in
The Charge of the Light Brigade
:
As justice requires the appearance of justice, a Caesar requires the appearance of a
Caesar. Thus is the president protected by platoons of Secret Service agents. The White House, by closing previously
open avenues through the heart of the capital and shielding the president from citizen detractors, has become a castle.
The White House staff has expanded and aggrandized power at the expense of Cabinet officials confirmed with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
Debate, encouraged by the separation of powers, is superfluous where support for
empire is underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex, as it is in the United
States. The Republican and Democratic parties are unified behind at least seven ongoing unconstitutional presidential
wars and climbing trillion-dollar national security budgets.
Our warfare state has given birth to subsidiary surveillance, crony capitalism, and a
welfare state. Congress and the judicial branch have become largely sound and fury, signifying nothing. The
Constitution's separation of powers is atrophying.
The life of the law is not justice but genuflections to power. It manufactures
doctrines that honor the power principle that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. When the
configuration of power changes, the law adapts accordingly. The adaptations may not be instantaneous, but they are
inexorable. This is not surprising. Judges are not born like Athena from the head of Zeus. They are selected through a
political process that vets them for compatibility with the views of their political benefactors. Benjamin Cardozo
observed in
The Nature of the Judicial
Process
:
"The great tides and
currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by."
The United States has become the largest and most actively garrisoned empire in
history, built up by World War II and the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union. Our empire has, among other things,
approximately 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, over 240,000 active duty and reserve troops in at least 172
countries and territories
, de facto
or
de jure
commitments to defend 70
countries, and presidential wars as belligerents or co-belligerents in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The president has by necessity become
a Caesar irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House possesses recessive or dominant genes. The law has
adapted accordingly, destroying the Constitution like a wrecking ball.
At present, the president with impunity initiates war in violation of the Declare War
Clause; kills American citizens in violation of the Due Process Clause; engages in indiscriminate surveillance his own
citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment; substitutes executive agreements for treaties to circumvent the
requirements of Senate ratifications by two-thirds majorities in violation of the Treaty Clause; substitutes executive
orders for legislation in violation of Article I, section 1; issues presidential signing statements indistinguishable
from line-item vetoes in violation of the Presentment Clause; wields vast standard-less delegations of legislative
authority in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers; brandishes a state secrets privilege to block
judicial redress for unconstitutional executive action in violation of due process; refuses submission to congressional
oversight in violation of the congressional power of inquiry; and declines to defend defensible duly enacted laws in
violation of the Take Care Clause.
The Constitution will be reborn only if the American people reject their Empire in
favor of a republic where individual liberty is the summum bonum. The odds of that happening are not good.
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission
under President Reagan and counsel to the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He is a partner in
the law firm of Fein & DelValle PLLC.
Anthropologist David Vine spent several years visiting and investigating U.S military bases
abroad. To put it mildly, he disapproves of what he found. In his sweeping critique, Base
Nation , Vine concludes that Washington's extensive network of foreign bases -- he claims
there are about 800 of them -- causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too
much money, underwrites dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the
country. Far from providing an important strategic deterrent, the bases actually undermine our
security. To remedy this immense travesty, Vine calls for Washington to bring the troops back
home.
If nothing else, Base Nation is a timely book. The issue of our expensive foreign
commitments has taken center stage in this presidential election. Vine probably finds it ironic
that most of the criticism is coming from Donald Trump.
Our extensive foreign-base network is probably an issue that we can't ignore for long.
Today, there seems more urgency to look at these long-term base commitments and examine what we
are really getting out of them. So, for raising the issue, I say, "Thank you for your service,
Mr. Vine."
But it is a shame that Base Nation , which could have made a strong contribution to
this debate, ends up making a heavy-handed and somewhat unreliable case against and the U.S.
military and U.S. foreign policy in general. His sweeping indictments detract from the
importance of his initial focus, our overextended base network.
There are some positives. Vine stands on firm ground when he details how inefficient the
base system often is. In fact, this is an issue that the federal government has been
addressing, albeit slowly and haltingly. Budget realities are solving the problem; many bases
are being shuttered and their functions consolidated into others. Vine thinks that overseas
bases cost us at least $71 billion a year; maybe closer to $100-200 billion. In one of the more
persuasive sections of the book, he explains how he made these calculations, which follow to
some extent an important 2013 study from the RAND Corporation. That it is difficult coming up
with any precise figures on overseas base spending suggests that we probably need to take a
harder look at how taxpayer money is being used.
Likewise, Vine raises valid criticisms about how many bases were constructed by either
displacing native populations, as the British did for our benefit at the Indian Ocean atoll
Diego Garcia, or by marginalizing the locals, as we allegedly have done at Okinawa in Japan. He
highlights the environmental damage done by U.S. military ordnance, although I think it unfair
that he ignores the more scrupulous attendance to the environment that we find in today's armed
forces. And Vine is right that having many young and bored men based far from home probably
doesn't elevate the morals of the local, host population.
But Vine simply fails to persuade in other parts of his critique. His fundamental distrust
of the military leads him to accept unquestioningly every dubious charge against it. He also
tends to be less than discriminating in some of his sourcing and characterization of events.
These problems undermine the overall credibility of his reporting.
Part of the problem with Base Nation is definitional. Vine's definition of a base --
"any place, facility or installation used regularly for military purposes, of any kind" -- is
far too broad. Even temporary assignments with host governments get defined as "bases." This
leads him to estimate that there are at minimum 686 bases, with 800 being "a good estimate."
Why the need to inflate the numbers?
Vine's foreign-base maps, though compelling to look at, appear a bit suspect in light of his
expanded definition. What's that big star in Greenland? That's Thule Air Station, a Danish
base, where we have about 100 personnel. And the other one in Ascension Island? That's a small
satellite-monitoring station, run by the British. What's that dot in Cairo? Oh, it's a
medical-research facility. These are hardly the footprints of overweening imperialism.
Likewise, he identifies many bases in Africa. To debunk the official position that we have
one permanent base there -- in Djibouti, rented from the French -- plus a few drone sites, Vine
relies on dodgy research from Nick Turse, a noted anti-military critic who thinks that the
Pentagon runs a hidden African empire.
Along similar lines, Vine believes the U.S. maintains an extensive, secret base system in
Latin America. We have one permanent base in the region, Cuba's Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). Once all
the al-Qaeda prisoners are gone, GTMO's main function will return to fleet training and
disaster response for the Caribbean. In addition, we have one arrangement in Soto Cano Air
Field in Honduras, which hosts a squadron of helicopters engaged in counternarcotic operations.
How does this base destabilize Central America, as Vine suggests? You got me.
Soto Cano is featured in one of the more tendentious chapters, which reveals Vine's method.
In discussing the base, he strongly suggests the U.S. military there conspired with the
Honduran Army during the "coup" against President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. He quotes a local
activist insisting the U.S. was behind the coup, and then leaves it at that. In fact, the U.S.
government firmly opposed removing the anti-American Zelaya, slapped sanctions on Honduras, and
negotiated for months to have Zelaya brought back into Honduras. Suggesting the U.S. military
backed the coup is, well, baseless.
Many of Vine's scattershot charges are of a similar nature. He accuses the U.S. Navy of
being in bed with the mob in Naples because, allegedly, it rents housing from landlords who may
have mob connections. He blames the military for the red-light districts around foreign bases,
like in South Korea, as if it directly created them. In another context, he claims, based on
one professor's opinion, that the U.S. Naval Academy fosters a rampant rape culture, and so
on.
Toward the end of the book, Vine challenges those who believe the bases are providing
valuable deterrence to "prove it." I'm not sure I can prove it to his satisfaction, but
regarding Korean-peninsula security, some experts point to our strong presence there as
deterring both sides from overreacting. And regarding Iraq, it seems evident that leaving
without any U.S. military presence destabilized the country. Many of our operations with
foreign militaries in Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia have a strong humanitarian
focus. It is disconcerting that he dedicates no space to these important, stabilizing missions
that are often enabled by our forward base deployment.
But Vine never demonstrates his main point: that the bases themselves are destabilizing. The
countries with our largest base presence -- Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Japan -- are all
prosperous, peaceful democracies. As for the local protests at our foreign military bases that
occasionally happen, these seem no more problematic than what occurs, certainly more often, at
our many embassies abroad. Should we withdraw our diplomatic missions too?
As for bases destabilizing the developing world, Vine overplays the U.S.-imperialism angle
and fails to appreciate how much control even a weaker government has over its own sovereignty.
Little Honduras could kick us out of Soto Cano tomorrow; we have an agreement that could end at
any time. Ecuador refused to renew our lease at Manta Air Base in 2008; we left without much
fuss. The Philippines in 1992 changed its constitution to prohibit foreign bases, forcing us to
leave Subic Bay. Now Manila, feeling threatened by China over the South China Sea island
disputes, is inviting us back. The Filipinos mustn't feel our presence too destabilizing.
Given Vine's criticism of our large base footprint, you would think he'd approve of the
Pentagon's recent plans on lowering its profile with its "lily pad" strategy -- bilaterally
negotiated, pre-staged locations that might enable a future deployment. Surely this approach
would alleviate the problems of the large, permanent bases Vine so painstakingly sights? But,
somewhat illogically, he objects to this "light footprint" approach as a new sign of
encroaching imperialism, not of gradual U.S. realignment and withdrawal.
Even if he doesn't make a strong case in Base Nation , in the long run, Vine probably
will get his wish. It is hard to imagine that an extensive military base network in Europe and
East Asia, the outcome of our victory in World War II and justified by Cold War strategy, will
still make sense a few decades down the road. Changes are already in the wind. A new strategy
for U.S. foreign policy and military power projection will doubtless be shaped largely by
budget exigencies and shifts in our allies' regional security priorities.
Michael J. Ard, a former naval officer and U.S. government analyst, works in the
security field and lectures on international security at Rice University.
Our critic seems to have some serious cognitive dissonance going on in his avoidance of
recognizing the imperial project that undergirds circling the world with U.S. military power
projection.
Fran Macadam is right. The bases and the problems they create are incidental to the policy
that engendered. Our nation went from a policy of intermittent imperialism after 1898 to one
of permanent imperialism after 1941.
Unless we ditch the empire and return to our correct status as an independent republic, we
will suffer the fate of all previous empires.
If we grant that our global commitments are burdensome, why not take the argument in a
reasonable direction. As we remember from the days of BRAC, closing bases is like pulling eye
teeth, so let's focus on narrowing this argument down to what may be feasible: End NATO,
remove our unwelcome forces from the Middle East, and shutter the bases where we're not
wanted (e.g. AFRICOM, Okinawa) and where leases are due to expire. We need to walk our
projection back from the borders of China & Russia. Even a minimal plan of this sort
would require a decade to accomplish. Ultimately we need a master, strategic foreign policy
vision that walks back our global projection this debate goes nowhere without that.
Unfortunately neither GOP or Democrat parties offer this vision. No need to wring our hands
over a "Close All the Bases" debate until we're back to Constitutional governance and foreign
policy, and are rid of the military-industrial complex. And the odds of that are ?
Our Founding Fathers never wanted or would have allowed foreign military bases. Thomas
Jefferson was adamantly opposed to building a navy but John Adams built a navy and Jefferson
used it to stop muslim barbarians from enslaving the crews of US merchant ships.
I cannot fathom why the US needs basis throughout the world. Id much rather have a strong
Philipines, Japan and Taiwan for us to partner with than vassal states that spend nothing for
their own defense and put the entire burden the their alliance on the US. How many shades is
that from colonialism or parasitism? Not that far in my book.
Europe is a fine example of parasitism. Today Europe expects its protector to be the US,
it has shifted all its resources to social programs and as a result it cannot even defend its
borders from unarmed migrants much less from a hostile aggressor.
So what is the strategy to contain Russia and China by being in Central Asia, to contain
Europe by constraining it with NATO, to constrain Asia via China, Japan, Philipines, Vietnam,
etc.
Im not a fan. The US is spending so much money maintaining these military alliances and
using US money and jobs to bribe compliance that our nation is going bankrupt and our
infrastructure is 3rd world. If these truly are competitor nations the wiser approach would
be to have a strong 1st world infrastructure, a strong economy, strong education and
employment and expansion into Mexico, Central America and South America. Nowhere else in the
world is a nation capable of dominating an entire continent from aggressor competing nations.
Nowhere else in the world is a nation capable of dominating an entire portion of the globe.
Instead of growing North, Central and South America we are constraining the rest of the
globe. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible but one can only shake a bottle of champagne
for so long and expect the bottle to constrain the carbonation. Eventually the cork will pop
and the declining debtor power will be brought down to size with years of animous for holding
others back.
" causes friction with erstwhile American allies, costs way too much money, underwrites
dictatorships, pollutes the environment, and morally compromises the country."
Nowhere in this article is there mention of what I would hope to be the primary purpose of
a forward base.
Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power
that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine
Our elites run roughshod over other peoples, and the American people can't constrain them
either. At least we know who the "real" Americans are. L'etat, it is them.
It shouldn't be a surprise that others piggyback on our defense spending. Why would they not?
From our point of view, who pays, says, and since we insist on saying wherever we can, we've
got to pay.
I have frequently wondered how costs of this sort of thing are calculated. Do the taxes
military families pay get deducted from the cost? Given at least some of them would be
unemployed in today's economy, do benefits they would have get deducted? Does the money they
spend in local economies in the US when not deployed get factored in some way? What about the
taxes the corporations which provide goods and services to the military pay, and that their
employees pay? It would seem almost impossible to arrive at an accurate cost figure.
"Does it truly help the US military defend the US (and I would include projections of power
that deter bad actors)?
If yes, then sod off to the wanker David Vine"
Using that logic, you wouldn't mind Russia or China setting up a military base in Mexico
or Cuba to deter the US (a proven 'bad actor') right??
Like a Dos Equis ad, Mexico is "keeping it interesante ." On July 1, Andres Manuel
Lopez Obrador, the veteran left-wing politician known as AMLO,
will likely win Mexico's presidential election , to the horror of policy analysts, U.S.
government officials, and the Mexican business community. As head of the upstart National
Regeneration Movement (MORENA, the Spanish acronym, also means "dark skin"), AMLO pledges to
make Mexico self-sufficient on food, halt foreign investment in the oil industry, and grant
amnesty to drug traffickers. AMLO hates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) --
although he's promised to stay in it for now -- and "the Wall" even more.
Washington's days of having a predictable and compliant partner in Mexico may be over.
This election is likely to radically transform Mexican politics. MORENA is
surging in the polls and may give AMLO a strong legislative bloc. Nationalist-minded
legislators from other parties could also defect to his agenda. That would cause a major
Mexican political realignment, under which for the next six years it could be governed by a
self-described "revolutionary nationalist" ruling coalition. It makes sense: Mexico's
neoliberal era had to end sooner or later. AMLO's longtime critique of an unfair economy and a
complacent and unresponsive political system has finally resonated.
What accounts for this sudden turnaround? Several factors have aligned in AMLO's favor.
Start with AMLO's opponents, who, in a time of change, represent continuity, splitting the
neoliberal vote in Mexico's "winner-take-all" system. The conservative National Action Party
(PAN), his strongest competitor, diluted its solid brand by running in coalition with two
leftist parties. The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) selected a well-qualified
former finance minister who is out of his depth as a campaigner. That's left the once-powerful
PRI mailing this campaign in, and AMLO siphoning up its traditional voters.
Insecurity and corruption,
according to polls , are the top issues for Mexican voters, and on these AMLO scores well.
Especially on managing corruption and crime, Mexico's political elite have appeared notoriously
inept. The former head of the state oil company PEMEX, a close ally of President Enrique
Peña Nieto, has been credibly accused of taking up to
$10 million in bribes to approve contracts from the corrupt Brazilian construction company
Odebrecht. Several governors have been indicted for racketeering and graft; one
even went on the lam and was arrested in Guatemala. Recently, Mexico's 12-year campaign to
corral drug trafficking organizations fell apart, and violence skyrocketed. Twenty-eight
thousand Mexicans were murdered last year, and political candidates are being physically
attacked. Meanwhile, drug trafficking gangs ("cartels") are placing parts of the country off
limits.
Then there's President Trump, who has treated Mexico as a problem and not as a partner by
insisting that it fund his humiliating border wall. When asked in 2015 by Wall Street
Journal editors if he thought the U.S. should promote stability and economic growth in
Mexico, he replied, "I don't care about Mexico honestly. I really don't care about Mexico."
Trump has bolstered AMLO's long-held view that Mexico has relied on the United States for too
long. On the campaign trail, AMLO has vowed to put Trump "in his place."
Still, these more immediate causes don't entirely explain AMLO's impending success. At a
deeper level, AMLO seems to be Mexico's answer to Samuel Huntington's key "who are we?"
question on national identity. AMLO's MORENA explicitly seeks to revive the abandoned ideals of
the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920): anti-imperialism, defense of national resources, equality,
and the protection of peasant rights. Tellingly, AMLO cites as his heroes two successful
presidents who propelled Mexico forward: Benito Juarez, the black-clad Zapotec Indian who
defeated the French-backed 19th-century "empire," and Lazaro Cardenas, the former revolutionary
general who nationalized the oil industry and built the modern Mexican state.
Despite his populism, AMLO hasn't always been an outsider. He started his political career
during the 1980s, when the PRI was still was Mexico's governing party. But he soon saw the
changes happening in his rural native state of Tabasco, when the oil boom pushed out the
farming and fishing industry. AMLO dissented from the PRI's decision to liberalize the economy
and joined the opposition in 1988.
Led by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who was president from 1988 to 1994, the country embarked
on a strict neoliberal development path and internationalist agenda, reversing its program of
statist economics and authoritarian governance. Its ruling politicians sold state industries,
embraced market reforms, let the peso float, and joined the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Over the last several years, Mexico City has even permitted greater American
involvement in its war against drug traffickers. Under Peña Nieto, Mexico finally
allowed its oil industry to permit foreign investment.
In truth, these reforms worked well enough: Mexico democratized and developed into a solidly
middle-income country with steady economic growth. Net immigration into the United States has
come to a halt. Security issues were messy, but unlikely to destabilize the country.
These reforms represented a big win for Washington. If American intervention was needed for
the occasional peso crisis or drug trafficker menace, we were happy to oblige. Mexico made a
difficult partner at times, but on the policy side, it was where Washington wanted it to
be.
But the cost of these changes may have been Mexico's identity, its sense of self. Returning
to Huntington, his "The Clash of
Civilizations?" article described Mexico as a state "torn" between its economic future and
political and cultural past. After a top advisor to President Salinas described the sweeping
changes the government was making, Huntington remarked, "It seems to me that basically you want
to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country." Salinas looked
at him with surprise and exclaimed: "Exactly! That's precisely what we are trying to do, but of
course we could never say so publicly."
AMLO and his followers have brooded about these radical changes for years. To this day, he
refers to the arch-neoliberal Salinas simply as El Innombrable -- he that cannot be
named. Neoliberalism launched AMLO not just on a political career but on a personal crusade to
bring the country back to its former ideals.
When AMLO won the Mexico City mayorship in 2000, he built up a national political base and
became a burr in the saddle of President Vicente Fox, who had embraced the liberal reforms of
the formerly ruling PRI. AMLO criticized Fox relentlessly, and in retaliation, Fox attempted to
have him legally prohibited from running for president in 2006.
This clumsy effort failed, giving AMLO a boost. But he narrowly lost the contest to the
PAN's Felipe Calderon, whose campaign linked AMLO with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo
Chavez. Embittered in defeat, AMLO immediately claimed the voting was rigged against him. AMLO
and his raucous followers held protests for months and even formed a parallel government. He
may have lost in 2006, but he solidified his position as the leader of Mexico's alternative
left.
AMLO's anti-system stance has given weight to the claim that he'd be another Chavez. The
comparison seems invidious, as the late comandante of Venezuela, an avowed Marxist and
coup plotter, crushed democratic institutions, set up a socialist economy, and in general drove
what had been a prosperous South American country into the ground. AMLO, an authentic democrat,
appears less megalomaniacal and more rules-focused, more the romantic reactionary than the
revolutionary radical.
Still, many of the same forces that propelled Chavez are driving AMLO now. Like Chavez, AMLO
is coming to power after a period of neoliberal reform and perceived intractable corruption.
Like Chavez, AMLO enjoys an almost mystical bond with his nation's poorer classes. And very
much like Chavez, AMLO is instinctively, but probably not irreversibly, anti-American in
outlook.
How these characteristics will play out with AMLO in power is hard to predict. The two main
parties won't be behind him, but many of their followers might. All of those alienated by
neoliberalism, the perceived kowtowing to Washington, the surrender of economic resources to
foreign companies and the free market, will flock to his banner. It is remarkable how some
former members of the right-of-center National Action Party and the PRI have backed his
campaign.
Some of AMLO's policy proposals seem less the stuff of hard leftism than nostalgic
nationalism. He focuses heavily on national development for industry and agriculture aimed at
self-reliance and reducing imports. He proposes holding referendums on the enacted legislation,
a move to broaden democracy, which would require constitutional reform. He seeks to raise the
minimum wage, but refreshingly pledges "no new taxes."
AMLO loves to wax nostalgic about Mexico's strong state traditions and will almost certainly
attempt to restore the waning power of the Mexican presidency as an anti-corruption pulpit. In
the tradition of newly inaugurated Mexican presidents, he'll probably look to prosecute a node
of corruption in Mexican society: a prominent businessman or politician, rather than a labor
union like his predecessors.
Much of the progress the United States has made with Mexico on security cooperation will
probably be jeopardized. It's hard to believe that AMLO will endorse the close relations that
the DEA, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community have forged with their Mexican
counterparts in the war on drugs. The extradition of the notorious drug kingpin Joaquin el
Chapo Guzman to the U.S. in 2017 will probably be the high watermark in the relationship. It is
doubtful that AMLO will permit more high-profile extraditions. President Trump's disdain for a
close relationship that has taken us decades to build may come back to haunt us.
But a poor relationship between Washington and Mexico City doesn't have
to be inevitable. Despite the rhetoric, the flamboyant American billionaire has much in
common with the austere Mexican populist. Both countries have too many common interests to go
down separate paths. The question is: does AMLO have to build the bomb to get Trump to care
about Mexico?
Michael J. Ard is a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Western
Hemisphere and the author of"An Eternal Struggle: The Role of the National Action
Party in Mexico's Democratic Transition." He teaches international relations at Rice
University's Master of Global Affairs program.
That's just the thing, AMLO isn't "an authentic democrat." He founded MORENA so he could keep
his presidential aspirations going; he's indistinguishable from the party. After losing in
2006, he notoriously said "to hell with institutions." His followers won't admit this, but
his platform is as diluted as the rest: he's taken in suspects of corruption and has allied
himself with both a very "conservative" party (the small, evangelical PES) and Mexico's hard
leftists.
"... The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation. ..."
Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war
30 - 40 , I here'd. Compared to Russia 5-8 ? Russia is in Syria by invitation to deal with
rebels/terrorist's .America is now threatening both. Despite being there to attempt a regime
change. Just who do they think they are ? The sooner they are stopped the better and the
easier.
Russia intervened nowhere; the USSR intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1993,
Yeltsin's cabal intervened in Russia to preserve Bush's and Clinton's New World Order. USSR
was invited into Afghanistan; Outlaw US Empire wasn't. An incomplete list from William Blum's
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II . A graphic map based on Blum's
book.
Yesterday, Putin met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Unfortunately, the Kremlin's recap of
the meeting's currently incomplete, but what is recorded is instructive:
"Of course, we look at the Russian Federation as a founder of the United Nations and as a
permanent member of the Security Council, but I would say that at the present moment we look
at the Russian Federation as an indispensable element of the creation of a new multipolar
world.
"To be entirely frank, these are not easy times for multilateralism and not easy times for
the UN. And I think that after the Cold War and after a short period of unipolar world we are
still struggling to find a way to have a structured, multipolar world with multilateral
governmental institutions that can work. And this is something that worries me a lot and is
something in which, I believe, the Russian Federation has a unique role to play."
Considering many think Guterres just an agent for the Outlaw US Empire, maybe his cited
words will cause a reassessment. I'd like to know what followed. Apparently there was some
discussion about Korea and the
economic initiatives being openly discussed since RoK President Moon will arrive in
Russia tomorrow.
Lavrov met with Guterres today, and his
opening remarks shine a bit more light on what was discussed:
"As emphasised by President Putin, we have invariably supported, support, and will
continue to support the UN, this unique universal organisation. We think highly of your
intention, Mr Secretary-General, to raise the profile of the United Nations in world affairs,
particularly in settling regional conflicts. As you noted yourself at the meeting in the
Kremlin yesterday, this is largely dependent on the general state of the international system
as a whole and the UN member states' readiness to act collectively, jointly, rather than
unilaterally, and to pursue the goals enshrined in the UN Charter rather than
self-centred,[sic] immediate aims.
"We note that you have consistently advocated the pooling of efforts by major players to
deal with world problems. This is the logic of the UN Charter, specifically its clauses on
the creation and powers of the UN Security Council. I hope that based on the values we share
we will be able to successfully continue cooperation in the interests of solving
international problems."
Lots of emphasis on the absolute necessity of making the UN Charter whole again and not
allowing any one nation to make a mockery of it by pursuing its "self-centered, immediate
aims."
Ben @ 14
Thanks Ben. Yep that's what l thought reality would look like, that's my sanity safe for a
while longer. Remember we are not alone!
Zanon @ 12
That is a perfect example of 'fake news' we can spot it here ! Or are we here now msm!
Pantaraxia @ 20
Wow that doubles what I was already shocked about ! And then of course there's the comercal
operations destablising country's using greed as a weapon. Plus the banks, I'm sure South
Africa would have been a real success if they'd kept the banking curuption out. Time for
immoral capitalism to fall.
Also don't you just hate victim blaming.There that's me done. Grrr
@b: I know you're just one man and can't do everything, but it would be wonderful if you
could cover the history of hacking accusations against Russia. No one lays out a sequence of
events better than you.
Just yesterday, another accusation has been leveled against Russia by the head of
Germany's BfV intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen:
German intelligence sees Russia behind hack of energy firms - media report (Reuters).
It's a serious accusation, and one would expect a serious proof. However, no proof has been
given except that "it fits the Russian modus operandi". Also, the fact that the alleged
attack has been named "Berserk Bear" by some unknown Western analyst. Apparently, that's
enough proof by today's standards.
There is a critical lack of independent thinking and skepticism in the international
computer security circles nowadays. The attributions of attacks to countries are very
shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain
IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are
uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of
all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and
programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation.
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came
up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but
was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new
world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and
political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The
Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of
liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm
control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now
rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to
a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain
their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of
core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of
"democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming
regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.
Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be
called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute
hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend
either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.
Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various
interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of
North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam
and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And
the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7
group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There
has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out
differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian
President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement
coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the
prospect and it just might take place.
One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's
traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic
objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby
maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between
Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances
that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of
trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against
Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of
"mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself
without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs
and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.
My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in
Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to
Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with
North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate
anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some
others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are
perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.
And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that
détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room.
Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something
called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and
the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne
Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from
different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of
liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting
that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly
deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some
satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for
the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take
action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the
country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S.,
which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not
attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by
terrorists.
And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on
the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of
dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on
impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless
cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated
intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the
occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground
than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported
that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will
work.
The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new
military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if
Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians.
In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been
periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in
aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The
Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating
– and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.
And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently
attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that
the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe
and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes
attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is
precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks
that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to
attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.
Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in
principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the
G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential
grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present,
it is not pretty.
The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be
defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and
dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars,
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process
of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're
sore all right.
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or
disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the
government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The
continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"
Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the
anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what,
D.C.?
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
regulations.
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
their job(s).
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
election.
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
prophet.)
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
"... By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US contribution would also rise! ..."
"... Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really understanding who his adversary's are. ..."
"... Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because of the decisions American industrial leaders have made. ..."
"... The USA has a trade surplus with Canada. Trump lied about that. ..."
At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as "the piggy bank
that everybody is robbing."
After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a
few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "There's a special place in hell for any
foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then
tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what weak, dishonest Justin
Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One."
In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank: "Why should I, as President of the
United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for
decades [while] the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same
countries that rip us off on Trade?"
To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are
a good place to begin.
Our elites see America as an "indispensable nation," the premiere world power whose ordained
duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal
world order.
They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the
future of the planet.
Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free-ride on our defense efforts
as they engage in trade practices that enrich their own peoples at America's expense.
Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind
America's back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national
ends.
The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.
Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion
trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in
goods than we sold to the world.
A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way
down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.
Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people
are still with him on putting America first.
Yet he faces some serious obstacles.
What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared
to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the
greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the
mid-1970s?
Americans are indeed carrying the lion's share of the load of the defense of the West, and
of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South
Korea and Japan.
But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is
Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and
let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?
Ike's secretary of state John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an "agonizing reappraisal"
of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies if they did not contribute more money and troops.
Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed,
when the Cold War ended, our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still
subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on even more allies since the Soviet Empire fell.
If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense that Trump demands, or accept the tariffs
America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut
U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland, and Germany, and let the
Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected
seems at hand.
Trump promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to
force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay
out of Mideast wars and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.
That's what America voted for.
Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign,
even within his own party.
Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has
imposed and threatening retaliation. Free-trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the
cost of the items U.S. companies make abroad and then ships back to the United States.
The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump's
critical tests have yet to come.
And our exasperated president senses this.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
America spends 3 times as much on defense as its allies because it is addicted to military
spending. The solution is not to pressure other countries to acquire the same addiction. The
solution is for America cut its own military spending.
This is just another example of America trying to "export" its domestic issues. Quit
blaming foreigners and deal with your issues.
"A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century." never imagined I'd say this, but
you are absolutely correct. of course you neglect to acknowledge, Trump himself is an "elite"
and a "globalist". the fact his "game" is real estate, as opposed to governance is more of a
semantic distinction than ideological. debt-fueled consumerism drives real estate just as it
drives globalism. this is nothing new. add to this the pathological narcissism and the
ability to leverage moral bankruptcy as he has the tax codes and bankruptcy laws, and voila,
just another globalist in populist clothing. as I have maintained all along, he is not so
much anti-establishment as he is an establishment of one – he simply thrives in a
different type of swamp and favors a smaller oligarchy/plutocracy. and of course, there is
the big news out of Singapore/Korea, but again, much of the 'spin' or upside cited in a
denuclearized Korean peninsula involves the opportunity for North Korea to join the
globalists at the globalists' table. one can only wonder if there will be Ivanka's handbags
will be made in Panmunjom, and if Kim Jong Un will stay at the Trump hotel in DC? either way,
you are correct he is the candidate the American people, and the globalists "elected".
One problem with Trump's rant: the US enjoys a small trade surplus with Canada.
Would someone please get this president some hard facts and drill him on them for however
long it takes top get them fixed in his mind before he goes off half-cocked with any more
nonsense?
As always, Mr Buchanan sets out his personal agenda and then claims that Trump promised to
implement it if elected. The more Trump backs away from globalised free trade (if that's what
he's really doing), the more that suits the EU. The "core value" of the EU is a large
internal market protected by a high tariff wall. Globalization was rammed down an unwilling
EU's throat by the US in the Reagan years and only the British elite ever really believed in
it. As for NATO, nobody now believes that the US will honor its commitments, no matter how
much Europe pays, so logically, the European members are concentrating their additional
expenditure on an independent European defense system, which, needless to say, the US is
trying to obstruct.
By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based
on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US
contribution would also rise!
Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really
understanding who his adversary's are.
Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking
advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many
of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because
of the decisions American industrial leaders have made.
Secondly, there is absolutely no threat to NATO from Russia or Putin. Europe could slash
its already meager defense budget with only beneficial consequences. The same with Japan and
S. Korea. None of these countries need US military help. There are no real military threats
to these countries. US military spending has never been about defending other countries. It
is about enriching the shareholders of American military contractors.
So here is the real world: The United States has established a "liberal rules-based global
order" that allows wealthy American and European commercial interests to benefit mightily
from trade, and property and resource control in foreign countries. And this order is
maintained by US military power. That is why the US is "the one indispensable nation". We are
the nation that is allowed to break the order, to be the bully, in order for the rules-based
order to even exist. That's why we are beating up on countries that try to live outside of
this order like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Russia and everyone else who don't fall in line.
So Donald Trump is fighting against the power elite of the United States, he just doesn't
understand that. He is fighting against the most powerful people in the world, people who are
well represented by both political parties. He can win this fight if he lets the average
American on to this reality. And then leads them properly to a better, more balanced world.
But I suspect that he would be assassinated if he tried.
In re NATO and other oversea DOD spending, the old saying "who pays, says" has a corollary.
Who wants to say has to pay. The US, since WWII, has wanted, insisted, on being in charge of
everything we touch. This costs a lot, not to mention it often doesn't work the way we want.
It would be easy enough to stop spending all this money. The Pentagon and the
military-industrial complex would have a conniption and those whose defense bills we've been
paying would complain to high heaven, but Trump seems intent on trashing all those alliances
anyway and also on spending more money on defense than even the Pentagon thinks they need.
Trade deficits don't work the way you think they work. In todays economy the traditional
measures of deficits don't actually tell us much about what is going on.
Do you know what China does with that $350b trade surplus? A huge percentage of it is
rolled back immediately into US Treasury bonds because we are the only issuer of credit in
sufficient amounts and of suitable stability for them to buy. All of that deficit spending
Trump and the Republicans in congress passed last year is being financed by the very trade
imbalance that Trump is trying to eliminate.
But trade imbalances really don't tell us much about the flow of money. Most of the
imbalance is created by US companies that have built factories in China to sell goods back to
the US, then repatriate money back to the US in the form of dividends or stock buy backs
(which are not counted in the trade balance at all).
At best trade balances tell us very little meaningful about what is really going on, but
can be wildly deceptive. At worst they are an easy tool, for demogogs who have zero
understanding of what is going on, to inflame other uninformed people to justify trade
wars.
Interesting the things that Buchanan ignores (on purpose?). The USA has a trade surplus with
Canada. Trump lied about that. There's nothing wrong with the USA spending less money to defend other countries. Trump
doesn't have to insult our allies to do that.
"Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable."
You give him more credit than he deserves. What he does understand is that while we're
being the world's piggy bank, the American taxpayer is being the Military-Industrial
Complex's piggy-bank and that's just fine with him. As it is with most members of
Congress.
" our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe "
Mr. Buchanan, like Trump, does not understand how NATO is funded. All NATO members have
been paying their dues. In fact, many pay a greater proportion relative to GDP per capita
than the U.S. does. Defense budgets are a different matter entirely.
This entire article seems to reduce complex issues into simple arithmetic. Economics and job
creation is about much more than balance of payments both the author and the US president
don't seem to realise this. Very shallow article.
America has a trade surplus with Canada, but seems determined to rub it in.
Some background. As the glaciers retreated south at the end of the ice age, they scraped
away Canada's topsoil and deposited it in America. Rural Canada has little arable areas; it's
beef and dairy by necessity. Costs are high and there are ten Americans to every Canadian
hence the subsidy. America subsidizes it's agriculture $55 billion annually.
Great, if we're upset about having to protect our allies in the Pacific, let's change the
Japanese constitution to allow them to have a real military again to defend themselves and
give the South Koreans nukes to balance out the power situation between them and the Norks/
Chinese. (Why is it so little is ever said about China being a nuclear power?) This whole
fantasy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is so naive it's laughable. If nukes
exist, there will never be any permanent guarantee of anything, and other countries will just
keep getting the bomb without our permission, like Pakistan and China. The genie is out of
the bottle, so time to be brutally realistic about what we face and what can be done. We can
whine all we want to about how it's not our responsibility, but then we expect other
countries to be hobbled and still somehow face enemy powers.
Lets take a look at the growing list of nations shifting to the right (nationalism and
populism)
-The Czech, Slovak and Slovenia Republics Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, the US.
Nations shifting this year to the right (nationalism and populism)
-Austria, Bavaria and Italy
Nations leaning to the right and leaning toward joining the VISEGRAD
-Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece
AS YOU CAN SEE THE PILLARS OF MARXIST / SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST OPEN BORDERS EUROPE/EU ARE
BEING TAKEN DOWN. THE FIGHT WILL BE WITH FRANCE, GERMANY, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, BRITAIN,
SWEDEN AND THE UNELECTED EU SUPERSTATE. RIGHT NOW THE FIGHT IS WITH THE POOR SOUTHERN AND
EASTERN EUROPEAN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BUT EVENTUALLY IT WILL REACH A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT
BECOMES AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT BUT ITS ONLY AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT FOR THE LEFT AS THE EU
REACHES THE TIPPING POINT AND THE POWER SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT.
As we await info on Kim-Trump, I think it wise to examine what Trump's outbursts at and
beyond the G6+1 are based upon--his understanding of Economic Nationalism. Fortunately,
we have
an excellent, recent, Valdai Club paper addressing the topic that's not too technical or
lengthy. The author references two important papers by Lavrov and Putin that ought to be read
afterwards. Lavrov's
is the elder and ought to be first. Putin's Belt & Road International Forum
Address, 2017 provides an excellent example of the methods outlined in the first paper.
I
could certainly add more, but IMO these provide an excellent basis for comprehending Trump's
motivations as he's clearly reacting to the Russian and Chinese initiatives. Furthermore, one
can discover why Russia now holds the EU at arms length while
Putin's "I told
you so" reminder had to sting just a bit.
Then to recap it all, I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar's excellent article I linked to yesterday higher up in the thread.
He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan.
I encountered the late Bernard Lewis (1916-2018) during the 1990s culture
wars, when historians and educators met full-frontal multiculturalism, a thematic force
beginning to reshape U.S. and world history curricula in schools and colleges.
The two of us shared early, firsthand experience with Islamist disinformation campaigns on
and off campus. Using sympathetic academics, curriculum officers, and educational publishers as
tools, Muslim activists were seeking to rewrite Islamic history in textbooks and state and
national standards.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, created in 1994, was complaining of anti-Muslim
"bigotry," "racial profiling," "institutional racism," and "fear-mongering," while trying to
popularize the word "Islamophobia," and stoking the spirit of ethnic injustice and prejudice in
Washington politics.
Lewis and I were of different generations, he a charming academic magnifico long associated
with Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study. He had just retired from
teaching and was widely regarded as the nation's most influential scholar of Islam. "Islam has
Allah," he said sardonically at the time. "We've got multiculturalism."
Long before I met him, Lewis had alerted those who were listening to rising friction between
the Islamic world and the West. This was, in his mind, the outcome of Islam's centuries-long
decline and failure to embrace modernity. In thinking this way, Lewis had earned the fury of
the professor and Palestinian activist Edward Said at Columbia University, who wrote
Orientalism in 1978.
Said's influential book cast previous Western studies of the Near and Middle East as
Eurocentric, romantic, prejudiced, and racist. For Said, orientalism was an intellectual means
to justify Western conquest and empire. Bernard Lewis's outlook epitomized this approach and
interpretation. Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate student Barack
Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and geopolitics as
president.
For some years, Lewis had warned of the ancient feuds between the West and Islam: in 1990
he'd
forecast a coming "clash of civilizations" in Atlantic magazine, a phrase
subsequently popularized by Harvard professor Samuel E. Huntington.
Throughout his long career, Lewis warned that Western guilt over its conquests and past was
not collateral. "In the Muslim world there are no such inhibitions," Lewis once observed. "They
are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they
want, a quality which we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength
in the one, of weakness in the other."
Other examples of Lewis's controversial, persuasive observations include:
During the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lewis suddenly gained immense political
influence, love-bombed by White House neocons Richard Cheney, Richard Perle, and other
policymakers to a degree that preyed on the old man's vanity and love of the spotlight.
Anti-war feeling in official Washington then was unpopular. Among Republicans and Democrats
alike, to assert that Israel and oil were parts of the equation appeared uncouth. Insisted the
neocons and White House: the aim of the war was to bring democratic government and regional
order to the Mideast. Rescued from despotism, Iraqis would cheer invasion, Lewis and his allies
claimed, as Afghanis welcomed relief from Taliban fundamentalists.
In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised
what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast
states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect,
had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also revealed that Lewis had long been politically
involved with Israel and a confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel
Sharon.
"Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's
diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed
democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50
years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test," the Journal
proclaimed.
And so it has gone. After 15 years of many hard-to-follow shifts in policy and force, with
vast human and materiel costs, some analysts look upon U.S. policy in Iraq and the Mideast as a
geopolitical disaster, still in shambles and not soon to improve.
In other eyes Lewis stands guilty of devising a sophistic rationale to advance Israel's
security at the expense of U.S. national interests. In 2006, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer
accused Lewis of consciously providing intellectual varnish to an Israel-centered policy
group inside the George W. Bush administration that was taking charge of Mideast policies. The
same year, Lewis's reckless alarmism on Iranian nukes on behalf of Israeli interests drew
wide ridicule and contempt.
A committed Zionist, Lewis conceived of Israel as an essential part of Western civilization
and an island of freedom in the Mideast. Though, acutely aware of Islam's nature and history,
he must have had doubts about the capacity to impose democracy through force. Later, he stated
unconvincingly that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the facts of the matter point in
another direction.
Lewis thus leaves a mixed legacy. It is a shame that he shelved his learned critiques and
compromised his scholarly stature late in life to pursue situational geopolitics. With his role
as a government advisor before the Iraq war, academic Arabists widely took to calling Lewis
"the Great Satan," whereas Edward Said's favored position in academic circles is almost
uncontested.
Yet few dispute that Lewis was profoundly knowledgeable of his subject. His view that
Islamic fundamentalism fails all liberal tests of toleration, cross-cultural cooperation,
gender equality, gay rights, and freedom of conscience still holds. Most Islamic authorities
consider separation of church and state either absurd or evil. They seek to punish free
inquiry, blasphemy, and apostasy. Moreover, it is their obligation to do so under holy law.
Wearing multicultural blinders, contemporary European and American progressives pretend none of
this is so. As has been demonstrated since 2015, Europe provides opportunities for territorial
expansion, as do open-borders politics in the U.S. and Canada.
In 1990, long before his Washington adventures, Lewis wrote in the American Scholar
, "We live in a time when great efforts are being made to falsify the record of the past and to
make history a tool of propaganda; when governments, religious movements, political parties,
and sectional groups of every kind are busy rewriting history as they would wish it to have
been."
On and off campus, Islamists today use Western progressive politics and ecumenical dreams to
further their holy struggle.
Lewis would point out that this force is completely understandable; in fact, it is a sacred
duty. What would disturb him more is that in the name of diversity, Western intellectuals and
journalists, government and corporate officials, and even military generals have eagerly
cooperated.
This article is exactly what this so-called intellectual Lewis is:
opinion.
All that's said by this Lewis guy is his opinion and his goal was hatred of Islam, therefore,
he wanted it to then have people follow along with hatred for arabs and Palestinians.
This was, of course, because then, people would keep supporting Israel!
How 'bout that?
Who are we kidding?
When talking about the history of this nation or that religion, Lewis offers mostly his
opinion and takes whatever event out of context to try to prove all this anti-Islam
rubbish. There are nations that have a majority of people of the Moslem religion, that have
different systems of government and so, we have free voting, and had for decades, in Turkey,
Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and so on.
Pakistan and Turkey had female Prime Ministers decade ago how 'bout that! And so did
Indonesia, the nation most populated by Moslems, in the word, and so did Senegal, in
Africa.
These nations are thousands of miles apart, with different languages and cultures.
What is not pointed out, but I will, since I know, is that whenever there was turmoil in an
election in a mostly Moslem populated nation, why it was the meddling by the U.S. covertly
and with bribes and trouble making.
Like when the CIA did that in Iran in 1953 after a fellow, Mosaddegh was freely elected and
he was stopped and the dictator Shah was put in.
The U.S. constantly either installed or supported anti-democratic leaders in the Middle East
and Asia.
By the way, that's how you put the subject of Edward Said- that he was a professor and a
Palestinian activist? That's it?
How come you didn't tell us readers that he is a Christian?
Lewis knows no more about the makings, origins or history of religions that do many dozens of
thousands of professors in the U.S. alone.
But, he has been is given a lot of media, and still is, because he is liked by the neo-cons.
Also, I know more than Lewis did.
dig what I'm saying
"In 2004 the Wall Street Journal devised what it called a Lewis Doctrine, which it defined
as "seeding democracy in failed Mideast states to defang terrorism." The Journal clarified
that the Lewis Doctrine "in effect, had become U.S. policy" in 2001. The article also
revealed that Lewis had long been politically involved with Israel and a confidant of
successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon."
In laymen's terms, Lewis was an Israeli operative working the academic beat. His American
citizenship meant about as much to him as his earlier British citizenship had, a matter of
convenience, nothing more. Stripped of the spurious Ivy League gloss, his "scholarship" was
tendentious; it served to advance a political agenda and was consistently tainted by his
entanglements with politicians and political institutions. Circa 2018 it reads as badly
dated, often wrong, and generally wrong-headed.
I see he died a few weeks ago. Good riddance. "Intellectual father of the Iraq War" isn't
the epitaph of a decent human being.
The consensus I'm aware of is that Obama's foreign policy was just a continuation of the
foreign policy pursued by Bush during his second term. How does Obama continuing the foreign
policy positions of Bush, who was influenced by Lewis, indicate that Obama's views on the
middle east were influenced by Said? It should similarly be noted that while academics are
practically universal in siding with Said over Lewis, they did not universally support him
against other orientalists. While I'm likely butchering his claims, I seem to recall that
Robert Irwin criticized Said's Orientalism for focusing too much on Bernard Lewis, ignoring
the work of German orientalists who would complicate Said's claims about the West's portrayal
of the middle east.
I admire his spirited defense of the Western canon in literature and culture based upon
Judeo-Christian values. But he lost me when he joined forces with the campaign to blacklist
Professors John Meanshimer and Steven Walt with their book The Israel Lobby. The book
originally was an article that was expanded into their book. But because of the blacklist
against them, they coildn't ge their critique published in America and had to go to The
London Review of Books. And of course the article was smeared as anti-Semitic because it was
critical of the Israeli lobby (namely AIPAC) and its influence over our foreign policy.
"He was brilliant, but his vanity turned him into a reckless alarmist and a pro-Israeli
partisan."
*****************
I'm missing how vanity & supporting Israel are connected?
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and trained
it. Our purpose was not to defang Islam but to superfang it, so we could have a new enemy to
justify ever-increasing budgets and power for Deepstate.
Now that we've switched back to Russia as the official enemy, our focus on Islam is
fading.
Saying that Lewis fell prey to vanity is easier than saying he, like the rest of the neocons,
was a hypocritical ethnic chauvinist.
In other words:
"Ethnic chauvinism is a sin and a great evil, or evidence of dangerous mental illness,
except for the Zionists who you need to support uncritically and unconditionally."
One thing to remember about zionists is that many of the christian ones are expecting to
trigger the second coming once certain things come to pass and this includes geography in
that region. I grew up with that. Anyway, to them it's not reckless, it's speeding the
prophecy along to its rightful end.
Lewis' so-called analysis and historiography was politicized and deeply flawed, so much so
that he showed himself to be a bigot against Arabs and Armenians – he was a scholar of
Turkish history, who had been, wined, dined, bought and sold, and corrupted by the Turkish
and Israeli governments to serves as their genocide denialist- and of Islam, and anything
else Middle Eastern, that did not serve Israel's interests. He offered himself to the neocons
as a willing academic and did much damage by 'legitimizing' their bogus 'war on terror'.
He should not be allowed to rest in peace or escape accountability in the judgment of
history.
i guess is the question . . . to decipher the depth and scope that islam poses to the US.
There are just not that many non-Muslims shooting people over cartoons, and insults in the
name of god. I have some very fine relational dynamics with muslims, but on occasion, i can't
help but wonder which one is going take me out because i don't use the term honorable when I
say mohammed's name.
The Nt doesn't even advocate throwing stones at people who steal my coat, I am supposed to
offer up the other.
Islamic "fundamentalism" was rare and insignificant until we funded it, armed it, and
trained it.
Islamic fundamentalism blighted and extinguished the lives of millions of Armenians,
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others in the first half of the 20th century, long before dumb
Westerners funded it or armed it. The fact that people in the West are clueless about this
history does not mean it did not happen.
Obama had an English class with Said as an undergrad at Columbia. So did Leon Wieseltier
years earlier, as did many other Columbia students. Interestingly enough, Wiesaltier remained
an aggressive zionist. The claim that Said had any effect upon Obama's foreign policy ideas;
policies; or actions is profoundly silly.
To support your claim that "Said's line of thought profoundly influenced his undergraduate
student Barack Obama, and would have an immense impact on Obama's Mideast strategies and
geopolitics as president," you need a great deal more evidence. Currently, you have none.
Islamic fundamentalism was created and funded by Israel and the US to compete with the then
Marxist PLO and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.You thought Marxist terrorism was
problematic,look at Islamic terrorism.
"... Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is quickly discovering. ..."
"... John Adams warned that democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." ..."
"... James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ..."
"... Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred ..."
"... What we've got now is the tyranny of the ..."
"... minority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation. Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future policy. ..."
"... If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple: minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government, the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber stamp. ..."
"... One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity grows, the less self-governing it remains. ..."
Just because a country is democratic doesn't mean it is self-governing, as America is
quickly discovering.
Something has gone wrong with America's political institutions. While the United States is,
on the whole, competently governed, there are massive problems lurking just beneath the
surface. This became obvious during the 2016 presidential election. Each party's nominee was
odious to a large segment of the public; the only difference seemed to be whether it was an
odious insurgent or an odious careerist. Almost two years on, things show little signs of
improving.
What's to blame? One promising, though unpopular, answer is: democracy itself. When
individuals act collectively in large groups and are not held responsible for the consequences
of their behavior, decisions are unlikely to be reasonable or prudent. This design flaw in
popular government was recognized by several Founding Fathers. John Adams warned that
democracy "soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not
commit suicide."
James Madison was equally concerned with the pernicious consequences of large-scale
democracy, arguing that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in
general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Even George Washington had his doubts about whether democracy was consistent with wise
government. Democracies are slow to correct their errors, and those who try to guide the public
down a wise course frequently become the object of popular hatred : "It is one of the
evils of democratical governments, that the people, not always seeing and frequently misled,
must often feel before they can act right; but then evil of this nature seldom fail to work
their own cure," Washington wrote. "It is to be lamented, nevertheless, that the remedies are
so slow, and that those, who may wish to apply them seasonably are not attended to before they
suffer in person, in interest and in reputation."
Given these opinions, it is unsurprising that the U.S. Constitution contains so many other
mechanisms for ensuring responsible government. Separation of powers and checks and balances
are necessary to protect the people from themselves. To the extent our political institutions
are deteriorating, the Founders' first instinct would be to look for constitutional changes,
whether formal or informal, that have expanded the scope of democracy and entrusted to the
electorate greater power than they can safely wield, and reverse them.
This theory is simple, elegant, and appealing. But it's missing a crucial detail.
American government is largely insulated from the tyranny of the majority. But at least
since the New Deal, we've gone too far in the opposite direction. What we've got now is the
tyranny of theminority . It is not "the people" who govern the nation.
Instead, the state is run by permanent civil servants, largely unaccountable to any popular
control, and professional politicians who are usually hand-picked by party insiders (Hillary
over Bernie, anyone?). This has made it such that the actual 2016 election was more akin to
ratifying a foregone conclusion than a substantive choice over the direction of future
policy.
But now we confront a puzzle: the rise of the permanent government did coincide with
increased democratization. The administrative-managerial state, and its enablers in Congress,
followed from creative reinterpretations of the Constitution that allowed voters to make
decisions that the Ninth and Tenth amendments -- far and away the most ignored portion of the
Bill of Rights -- should have forestalled. As it turns out, not only are both of these
observations correct, they are causally related . Increasing the scope of popular
government results in the loss of popular control.
If you're a student of politics, you've probably heard of the iron law of
oligarchy . The phrase was coined by Robert Michels, an early 20th-century social
scientist, in his landmark study of political parties. The iron law of oligarchy is simple:
minorities rule majorities, because the former are organized and the latter are not. This is
true even within democratic institutions. As power was concentrated in the federal government,
the complexity of the tasks confronting civil servants and legislators greatly increased. This
required a durable, hierarchical set of institutions for coordinating the behavior of political
insiders. Durability enabled political insiders to coordinate their plans across time, which
was particularly useful in avoiding the pesky constraints posed by regular elections. Hierarchy
enabled political insiders to coordinate plans across space, making a permanently larger
government both more feasible and more attractive for elites. The result, in retrospect, was
predictable: a massive executive branch bureaucracy that's now largely autonomous, and a
permissive Congress that's more than happy to serve as an institutionalized rubber
stamp.
The larger the electorate, and the more questions the electorate is asked to decide, the
more important it is for the people who actually govern to take advantage of economies of scale
in government. If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need
for a behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing
political projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become
essential for technocratic experts and career politicians.
One of the cruel ironies of the political status quo is that democracy is
unquestioningly associated with self-governance, yet in practice, the more democratic a polity
grows, the less self-governing it remains. This is why an upsurge of populism won't cure
what ails the body politic. It will either provoke the permanent and unaccountable government
into tightening its grip, or those who actually hold the power will fan the flames of popular
discontent, channeling that energy towards their continued growth and entrenchment. We have
enough knowledge to make the diagnosis, but not to prescribe the treatment. Perhaps there is
some comfort in knowing what political health looks like. G.K. Chesterton said it best in his
insight about the relationship between democracy and self-governance:
The democratic contention is that government is not something analogous to playing the
church organ, painting on vellum, discovering the North Pole (that insidious habit), looping
the loop, being Astronomer Royal, and so on. For these things we do not wish a man to do at
all unless he does them well. It is, on the contrary, a thing analogous to writing one's own
love-letters or blowing one's own nose. These things we want a man to do for himself, even if
he does them badly . In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important
things must be left to ordinary men themselves
The first step towards renewed self-governance must be to reject the false dichotomy between
populism and oligarchy. A sober assessment shows that they are one in the same.
Alexander William Salter is an assistant professor in the Rawls College of Business at
Texas Tech University. He is also the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU's Free
Market Institute. See more at his website: www.awsalter.com .
This was going fine until the author decided to blame civil servants for our nation's
problems. How about an electoral system that denies majority rule? A Congress that routinely
votes against things the vast majority want? A system that vastly overpriveleges corporations
and hands them billions while inequality grows to the point where the UN warns that our
country resembles a third world kleptocracy? Nope, sez this guy. It's just because there are
too many bureaucrats.
He avoids the 17th amendment which was one of the barriers to the mob, and the 19th that
removed the power of individual states to set the terms of suffrage.
Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Katy Stanton could simply have moved to Wyoming.
It might be useful to only have property taxpayers vote.
And the problem is the left. When voters rejected Gay Marriage (57% in California!) or benefits
for illegals, unelected and unaccountable judges reversed the popular will.
I find your use of the word populism interesting. Inasmuch the word is generally used when the
decisions of the populace is different from that which the technocrats or oligarchs would have
made for them. The author being part of the technocratic elite thinks that he and his ilk know
best. This entire article is just a lot of arguments in support of this false and self serving
idea.
Making the federal government "small" will not solve the problems the author describes or
really alludes to. The power vacum left by a receding federal government will just be occupied
by an unaccountable corporate sector. The recent dismantling of Toys R Us by a spawn of Bain
Capital is the most recent manifestation of the twisted and pathological thought process that
calls itself "free market capitalism." A small federal government did not end child labor,
fight the Depression, win WW II or pioneer space exploration. Conservatives love the mythology
of a government "beast" that must be decapitated so that "Liberty" may reign. There are far
more dangerous forces at work in American society that inhibit liberty and tax our personal
treasuries than the federal government.
1) The US is not and never has been a ' democracy ' It is a Democratic Republic ' which is not
the same as a ' democracy ' ( one person -- one vote period ) of which there is only one in the
entire world . Switzerland
2) A large part of what has brought us to this point is the worn out well past its sell by
Electoral College which not only no longer serves its intended purpose .
3) But the major reason why we're here to put it bluntly is the ' Collective Stupidity of
America ' we've volitionally become : addled by celebrity , addicted to entertainment and
consumed by conspiracy theory rather than researching the facts
It's time to end the pretension that we live in a democracy. It maybe useful to claim so
when the US is trying to open markets or control resources in 3rd world countries. It's at that
time that we're 'spreading democracy'. Instead it's like spreading manure.
The managerial state arose to quell the threat of class warfare. Ironically those who sought to
organize the proletariat under a vision of class-based empowerment clamored for the same. The
response over time was fighting fire with fire as the cliche goes becoming what the opposition
has sought but only in a modified form.
If we were able to devise a way for distributive justice apart from building a bloated
bureaucracy then perhaps this emergence of oligarchy could have been averted. What
alternative(s) exist for an equitable distribution of wealth and income to ameliorate poverty?
Openly competitive (so-called) markets? And the charity of faith-based communities? I think
not.
Democracy, like all systems requires maintenace. Bernard Shaw said that the flaw of pragmatism
is that any system that is not completely idiotic will work PROVIDED THAT SOMEONE PUT EFFORT IN
MAKING IT WORK.
We have come to think that Democracy is in automatic pilot, and does not require effort of
our part See how many do not bother to vote or to inform themselves.
Democracy is a fine, shiny package with two caveats in it "Batteries not included" And "Some
assembly required" FAilure to heed those leads to disaster.
I see where you are coming from, but I must disagree. We don't have a democracy in any real
way, so how can it have failed?
Despite massive propaganda of commission and omission, the majority of the American people
don't want to waste trillions of dollars on endless pointless oversees wars. The public be
damned: Trump was quickly beaten into submission and we are back to the status quo. The public
doesn't want to give trillions of dollars to Wall Street while starving Main Street of capital.
The public doesn't want an abusively high rate of immigration whose sole purpose is to flood
the market for labor, driving wages down and profits up. And so on.
Oswald Spengler was right. " in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the
preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it
the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the
franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune."
"If the federal government were kept small and simple, there would be little need for a
behemoth public sector. Developing durable and hierarchical procedures for organizing political
projects would be unfeasible for citizen-statesmen. But those same procedures become essential
for technocratic experts and career politicians."
True, but this implies retarding government power as is will lead to an ultimate solution.
It will not. The sober truth is that a massive centralized national government has been
inevitable since the onset of the second world war or even beforehand with American
intervention in the colonoal Phillippines and the Great War. Becoming an empire requires
extensive power grabbing and becoming and maintaining a position as a world power requires
constant flexing of that power. Maintaining such a large population, military, and foreign
corps requires the massive public-works projects you speak of in order to keep the population
content and foreign powers in check. Failure to do so leads to chaos and tragic disaster that
would lead to such a nation a collapse in all existing institutions due to overcumbersome
responsibilities. These cannot be left to the provinces/states due to the massive amounts of
resources required to maintain such imperial ambitions along with the cold reality of state
infighting and possible seperatist leanings.
If one wishes to end the power of the federal government as is, the goal is not to merely
seek reform. The goal is to dismantle the empire; destroy the military might, isolate certain
diplomatic relations, reduce rates of overseas trade and reduce the economy as a whole, and
then finally disband and/or drastically reduce public security institutions such as the FBI,
CIA, and their affiliates. As you well know, elites and the greater public alike consider these
anathema.
However, if you wish to rush to this goal, keep in mind that dismantling the American empire
will not necessarily lead to the end of oppression and world peace even in the short term. A
power vacuum will open that the other world powers such as the Russian Federation and the PRC
will rush to fill up. As long as the world remains so interconnected and imperialist ambitions
are maintained by old and new world powers, even the smallest and most directly democratic
states will not be able to become self-governing for long.
Well, when, statistically speaking, half of the population has an IQ of less than 100 (probably
more than half now that USA has been invaded by the Third World) then a great number of people
are uninformed and easily manipulated voters. That is one of the great fallacies of democracy.
In an era when the word "democracy" is regarded as one of our deities to worship, this article
is a breath of fresh air. Notice how we accuse the Russians of trying to undermine our hallowed
"democracy." We really don't know what we mean when we use the term democracy, but it is a
shibboleth that has a good, comforting sound. And this idea that we could extend our
"democracy" by increasing the number of voters shows that we don't understand much at all.
Brilliant insights.
I believe we are prisoners of so-called "democracy"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"
Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter
which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling
instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for
taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all
kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his
entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the
compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
America had dramatically changed since John F. Kennedy seduced voters with the promises of
the New Frontier. A young family, the campaign jingles, the embrace of television, and the
prospect of America's first Catholic president injected a sense of patriotic adrenaline into
the 1960 campaign. There were "high hopes" for Jack and a sense of cultural validation for
Catholics who remembered Al Smith's failed presidential bid in 1928. In 1960, the Everly
Brothers and Bobby Darin crooned through the radio, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird
proved a national sensation, and Americans flocked to movies like Spartacus in
magnificent downtown theaters.
But the frivolity and innocence, however illusory, were shattered on November 22, 1963.
Kennedy's assassination violently shifted America's cultural fault lines. One afternoon
accelerated the nation's sociological maladies, intensified its political divisions, and
evaporated its black-and-white contentment. Americans proceeded on a Technicolor path of
disruption, one that had transformed the nation by the time of Bobby's announcement on March
16, 1968. It was that year when The Doors and Cream blasted from transistor radios, John
Updike's Couples landed on the cover of Time , and 2001: A Space Odyssey
played in new suburban cinemas. The country had experienced a dervish frenzy, and Bobby was
fully aware of his nation's turbulent course.
The country was rocked by young students protesting a worsening war in Vietnam. Racial
tension exploded and riots destroyed urban neighborhoods. America's political evolution forever
altered its electoral geography. Bobby was embarking on a remarkable campaign that challenged
the incumbent president, a man he despised for many years. But the source of this strife
stemmed from the White House years of Bobby's brother. "While he defined his vision more
concretely and compellingly than Jack had -- from ending a disastrous war and addressing the
crisis in the cities to removing a sadly out-of-touch president -- he failed to point out that
the war, the festering ghettos, and Lyndon Johnson were all part of Jack Kennedy's legacy,"
wrote Larry Tye in his biography of Bobby.
For the 1968 primary, Kennedy metamorphosed into a liberal figure with an economic populist
message. Kennedy's belated entry turned into an audacious crusade, with the candidate
addressing racial injustice, income inequality, and the failure of Vietnam. He balanced this
message with themes touching upon free enterprise and law and order. Kennedy hoped to appeal to
minorities and working-class whites. He quickly became a messianic figure, and the press
embellished his New Democrat image. By late March, Johnson announced that he would not seek
reelection during a televised address. Through his departure, Johnson worked to maintain
control of the party machine by supporting Hubert Humphrey, his devoted Vice President. But in
the following weeks, Kennedy built momentum as he challenged McCarthy in states like Indiana
and Nebraska. His performance in both states, where anti-Catholic sentiments lingered,
testified to Kennedy's favorable electoral position.
In April 4, Kennedy learned that the Rev. King had been assassinated. He relayed the civil
rights leader's death in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis. His words helped spare
Indianapolis from the riots that erupted in cities across the country, ultimately leading to
nearly 40 people killed and over 2,000 injured. MLK's assassination served as an unsettling
reminder to Kennedy's family, friends, campaign aides, and traveling press. During Kennedy's
first campaign stop in Kansas, the press corps stopped at a restaurant where the legendary
columnist Jimmy Breslin asked, "Do you think this guy has the stuff to go all the way?"
"Yes, of course he has the stuff to go all the way," replied Newsweek's John J.
Lindsay. "But he's not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot
him. I know it and you know it. Just as sure as we're sitting here somebody is going to shoot
him. He's out there now waiting for him. And, please God, I don't think we'll have a country
after it."
Despite what happened in 1963, the Secret Service had yet to provide protection of
presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees during the 1964 election or the 1968
primary. But all the signs were there that Kennedy needed protection. The frenzied crowds
increased in size, taking a physical toll on the candidate. In one instance, "he was pulled so
hard that he tumbled into the car door, splitting his lip and breaking a front tooth that
required capping," writes Nye. "He ended up on a regimen of vitamins and antibiotics to fight
fatigue and infection For most politicians, the challenge was to attract crowds; for Bobby, it
was to survive them." In California, just 82 days after his announcement, Kennedy met the fate
that so many feared.
♦♦♦
Bobby Kennedy was a complicated figure from a family that continues to engage America's
imagination. In his autobiography, the novelist Philip Roth, who recently passed away,
reflected on Kennedy's assassination:
He was by no means a political figure constructed on anything other than the human
scale, and so, the night of his assassination and for days afterward, one felt witness to the
violent cutting down not of a monumental force for justice and social change like King or the
powerful embodiment of a people's massive misfortunes or a titan of religious potency but
rather of a rival -- of a vital, imperfect, high-strung, egotistical, rivalrous, talented
brother, who could be just as nasty as he was decent. The murder of a boyish politician of
forty-two, a man so nakedly ambitious and virile, was a crime against ordinary human hope as
well as against the claims of robust, independent appetite and, coming after the murders of
President Kennedy at forty-six and Martin Luther King at thirty-nine, evoked the simplest,
most familiar forms of despair.
For those schoolchildren and their parents in June 1968, Kennedy's campaign offered a sense
of nostalgia. They remembered the exuberance of his brother's campaign, the optimism of his
administration, and the possibilities of the 1960s. For the nation's large ethnic Catholic
voting bloc, another Kennedy reminded them of that feeling of validation in the 1960 election.
Of course, it had been a tumultuous decade for these voters. They lived in cities that had
precipitously declined since JFK's campaign visits in 1960. Railroad stations ended passenger
service, theaters closed, factories shuttered, and new highways offered an exodus to suburbia.
As Catholics, they prayed for the conversion of Russia, adapted to Vatican II reforms, and
adjusted to new parishes in the developing outskirts. Young draftees were shipped off to a
catastrophic war, which only intensified their feelings of disillusionment. Their
disenchantment raised questions about their sustained support for Democrats. Kennedy may have
proved formidable for Nixon in the general election, but the Catholic vote was increasingly up
for grabs.
Pat Buchanan understood this electoral opportunity for Republicans. In a 1971 memo, Buchanan
argued that Catholics were the largest bloc of available Democratic voters for the GOP: "The
fellows who join the K.of C. (Knights of Columbus), who make mass and communion every morning,
who go on retreats, who join the Holy Name society, who fight against abortion in their
legislatures, who send their kids to Catholic schools, who work on assembly lines and live in
Polish, Irish, Italian and Catholic communities or who have headed to the suburbs -- these are
the majority of Catholics; they are where our voters are."
In subsequent presidential elections, Catholic voters flocked to Democrats and Republicans.
Their electoral preferences were driven by the issues of the moment and often by location. The
geographical divide of our politics has only intensified. The 2016 presidential election
encapsulated this trend. Voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt overwhelmingly supported Donald
Trump that year. Many of these voters previously supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In
1968, these voters likely appreciated Kennedy's campaign message. But the tragedy of the nation
is now a loss of optimism -- the belief that tomorrow will be a better day. Americans are
overwhelmed by ideological tension and socio-economic angst. The prosperity enjoyed by large
metropolitan regions has not spilled over into the heartland. There is no nostalgia for 1968
because countless Americans understand that the nation has failed to address income inequality,
job displacement, urban decline, and mass poverty. It was so long ago, but America did lose its
innocence on November 22, 1963. Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968 served as a reminder that it
would never return.
Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on
Twitter at @CFMcElwee
.
"... Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development. ..."
"... If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade. ..."
More troublingly, Robert Kennedy's death occurred within five years of his elder brother's,
and under similar circumstances. It is important to recall how unprecedented their deaths were
to the generation who witnessed them. If time has removed the shock of the assassinations of
the Kennedy brothers, it should not obscure just how anomalous they are. Bad luck may be part
of the mythos of the Kennedy family, but lightning does not strike the same place twice, and
political assassinations are exceedingly rare in American history. Both Kennedy brothers hurled
themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time -- Israeli nationalism
and anti-communism -- and both appeared to have paid a heavy price.
In the first place, I don't think that failure of Robert Kennedy had anything to do with a
substantial limitation of the liberal world view, but with another concept, or argument:
The end cannot justify the means because it is the mean, which is a process, which
conditionates the end, in itself only an outcome.
Robert Kennedy supported violence made by the Zionist movement, turned into a State, and
if you ask me, it was that violence which -no pun intended- backfired against him.
Now, about the out balance between loyalty and allegiance homeland/nation, I think it
should be looked at from Sirhan perspective. Yes, he had escaped from what, in his
perspective, was zionist persecution, just to end in a country where that persecution was
supported actively by some high profile politicians. I am not going to say that murder is
right, but some how it had to feel for him as if that anti palestinian israely persecution
had reappeared very near to his home.
From that point of view, he wasn't a refuge anymore; the country where he was living had
become an acomplice of that persecution.
Maybe, if Robert Kennedy had considered a less bellicist way to support Israel, like
sending military support without delivering neither the means nor the command decissions to
the government of Israel, but keeping it in the hand of the U.S., who knows.
This article doesn't quite try to justify Oswald's or Sirhan's actions. But it places them
firmly in a political context rather than a criminal one.
It also suggests that JFK and RFK both went too far – that they "hurled themselves
into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time" and thus bear a degree of
responsibility for their own fates.
If we want to debate the merits of arming Israel, or undermining Cuba, then let's have
that debate. But this is altogether the wrong way to frame it. I, for one, don't ever want
the Overton window on such issues to be shifted by the acts, or even the potential acts, of
an assassin.
Israel twice begged Jordan not to join the war that it was already fighting with Egypt and
Syria – a war of aggression and genocide, where Nasser boasted of the impending total
destruction of Israel, Egyptian state media spoke of a road from Tel Aviv to Cairo paved in
Jewish skulls, and Israel's rabbinate consecrated national parks in case they had to be used
for Jewish mass graves.
Sirhan Sirhan's entire identity was wrapped up in the frustrated need for Jewish servitude
and inferiority, the bitterness that a second Holocaust had failed. He was exactly like the
Klan cops in Philadelphia, Mississippi, murdering Freedom Riders who tried to deprive them of
their most cherished resource: assured superiority over their traditional designated victim
group.
Hinted at but ignored is another aspect by which 1968 presaged 2018. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy
waited until after Gene McCarthy had challenged LBJ and LBJ had withdrawn from the race
before entering. For many (most?) McCarthy backers, Kennedy was an opportunistic, privileged
spoiler. In the same way, many of Bernie Sanders' supporters looked upon Hillary Clinton as
the privileged spoiler of a Democratic Party establishment that had tried and failed to move
the party to the right. The McGovern was followed by Carter, who was followed by Mondale, who
was followed by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. For Democrats, then, it's
been fifty years of struggling to find a center, a struggle Republicans pretty much found in
Ronald Reagan.
John Wilkes Booth was wrapped up in bitterness, defeat & a warped loyalty to his
homeland, too.
It's interesting I guess to examine assassins' motives, but to what point?
Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky.
Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear
weapon development.
Let the many who criticize TAC for not printing pro Israeli essays read this one. Also, read
the numerous blogs supporting this thrust. The "small nation" phrase was a tip-off to the
author's loyalties. I think this article is more worthy of the New York Times. Let us not
forget June 8, 1967, is another anniversary, when the sophisticated and unmarked aircraft and
PT boats using napalm of the author's "small nation" attacked the USS Liberty in
international water, with complete disregard to the ship's American markings and large US
flag. http://www.gtr5.com/ This event
received scant coverage on P19 of the aforementioned NYT. "Small nation"; indeed!
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their
victims.
Sirhan Sirhan is Jordanian – a nation that was invented specifically to be an
apartheid state with no Jews at all, forever closed to Jewish inhabitation or immigration.
That is his view of normalcy. I'm sorry it's also yours.
This is pure bunk. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan was the assassin of RFK has been categorically
disproven by the analysis of the fatal bullets, which none of came from Sirhan's gun. And RFKs friends and close advisors all knew that he had no love for Israel. Whatever he
said in support of Israel was for the media purposes only.
Having worked in Jordan and watched Israelis do business and as tourists (Jewish shrines)
there, I saw and heard no antisemitism. From my perspective, there seemed to be a positive
relationship. Elat and Aqaba are like sister cities. In fact, there seemed to be high-level
cooperation. Keep looking you will find bigotry to justify your positions.
I completely agree with Steve Naidamast. This article is indeed "pure bunk" because Sirhan
Sirhan is a side story. That's why this article, with such an angle, should simply never have
been published.
If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and
could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by
bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition,
sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held
8 shots. So let's stop this charade.
TTT -- yo weren't just talking about Sirhan. I wasn't talking about him at all. I have no
sympathy for people who practice terrorism, whether it is done by Palestinians, Jordanians,
or the IDF.
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
Thucydides tells us that war
changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when
" mil-splaining
" military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between
Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly
applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.
Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the
nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate,
and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.
This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs
associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and
celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's
expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't
matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar
demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow
walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't
stop him from continuing it.
Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between
those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at
civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols
that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" --
but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the
aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its
military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking
how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often
have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your
service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.
The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are
deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy:
stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a
national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are
deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but
what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to
scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully
understanding and reform.
But the civil-military divide goes
both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This
Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to
correct them. Open a dialogue: you might
build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to
explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not
just
distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact
with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools,
churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture
relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.
Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed
"what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from
a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps
the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the
stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether
American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to
achieving desired ends there.
A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and
strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we
have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like "
The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing
world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism
, American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can
strike anywhere, this
capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.
What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted
while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat
remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs,
there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not
due consideration of the nation. This situation is
genuinely tragic .
For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with
sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as
any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a
vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't
lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've
seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.
John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army
aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West
Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
12 Responses to On Memorial Day,
Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'
(This reply was intended for an older article
"http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force"
from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )
The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.
It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII
is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars.
NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these
frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound
defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under
the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness
notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for
those who feel strongly about this.
But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.
The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one
dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario
most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all
volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight,
prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill
challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the
voting population pay the price
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that
communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men.
But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social
cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one
another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have
heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than
me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and
proceed to correct them."
U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins
the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free
will.
Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of
miles from American shores makes little sense.
The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support
to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And
those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?
The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are
supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni
wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy
ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior
Heroes"?
The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being
played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding,
why hasn't he gotten out?
The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy
providing real value to their fellow citizens.
The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive
propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the
architect of the pathological incongruence.
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some
essential questions.
As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who
recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for
serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death
at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.
What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's
grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an
oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no
one attended.
The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a
media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military
engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very
fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.
The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated
from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan
did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four
soldiers in Niger has faded from view.
With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be
in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent
of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your
service" as we go on with our daily lives.
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the
Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully
refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.
Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I
recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding
answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of
respect for our military personnel.
Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me
why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those
who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why'
there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the
structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."
Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will
consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while
on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US
troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously
condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.
According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of
the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to
justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an
important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the
leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their
political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do
the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first.
A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via
satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games
.
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
Powerful is the man who, with a short series of tweets, can single-handedly send the bluest
of the blue-chip stocks into a headlong tumble. For better or for worse, the current occupant
of the Oval Office is one such man, tapping into his power with the following missive that
crossed the Twitter transom on the morning of March 29:
I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay
little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery
Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of
business!
Over the next few trading days, with four subsequent tweets peppered in, Amazon's stock
dropped by more than $75 a share, losing a market value of nearly $40 billion. Card
carrying-members of the Resistance and Never Trump brigade quickly portrayed the president's
scorn as the latest evidence of his "soft totalitarianism" and general disdain for the First
Amendment and the free press. They noted that Amazon's CEO and founder, Jeff Bezos, owns the
Washington Post -- a leading "perpetrator" of what Trump has called the "opposition
party" and "fake news."
Concerns of politically motivated impropriety are not without merit. Trump has repeatedly
proven himself unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. As presidential candidate and commander in
chief, he has demonstrated an eagerness to use his Twitter account as a bully pulpit in his
petty brawls with lawmakers, media personalities, and anyone else who might draw his ire.
And yet, ulterior motives though there may be, knee-jerk dismissals of the president's
attack are short-sighted. The president's bluster in this instance is rooted in reality.
Indeed, contra the libertarian ethos that Amazon and its leader purport to embody, the
company has not emerged as one of history's preeminent corporate juggernauts through thrift and
elbow grease alone. Although the company's harshest critics must concede that Amazon is the
world's most consistently competent corporation -- replete with innovation and ingenuity -- the
company's unprecedented growth would not be possible without two key ingredients: corporate
welfare and tax avoidance.
Amazon has long benefitted from the procurement of taxpayer-funded subsidies, emerging in
recent years as the leading recipient of corporate welfare. According to Good Jobs First, a
Washington, D.C., organization dedicated to corporate and government accountability, Amazon
has, since 2000, received more than $1.39 billion in state and local tax breaks and subsidies
for construction of its vast network of warehouses and data centers.
These private-public "partnership" deals are perhaps best illustrated by the sweepstakes for
Amazon's second headquarters. Touted as the economic development opportunity of the century,
the chosen destination will reap the benefits of 50,000 "high-paying" jobs and $5 billion in
construction spending. The possibility of securing an economic development package of this
magnitude elicited proposals from 238 North American cities and regions, fomenting what some
have called a "bidding war" between mayors, governors, and county executives desperate for
economic invigoration.
After a first round deadline of October 19, the pool of applicants was, in mid-January,
whittled down to a list of 20. As expected, each finalist offered incentive packages worth more
than a billion dollars, with Montgomery County, Maryland, ($8.5 billion) and Newark, New
Jersey, ($7 billion) offering the most eye-popping bundles. Proposals utilized a wide array of
state and local economic development programs: property tax discounts, infrastructure
subsidies, and, in the case of Chicago's proposal, an incentive known as a "personal income-tax
diversion." Worth up to $1.32 billion, Amazon employees would still pay their income taxes in
full -- but instead of Illinois receiving the money, the tax payments would be funneled
directly into the pockets of Amazon itself.
While critics condemn the ostentatious bids of Maryland and New Jersey and decry the
"creative" gimmicks of cities such as Chicago, they are equally worried about the details -- or
lack thereof -- of the proposals from the other finalists. Despite demands for transparency
from local community leaders and journalists, only a handful of cities have released the
details of their bids in full, while six finalists -- Indianapolis, Dallas, Northern Virginia,
Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and Raleigh, North Carolina -- have refused to release any of
the details from their first-round bids. Viewing themselves as players in a zero-sum game of
high-stakes poker, they claim that there is little to gain, but a lot to lose, in making their
proposals public.
Such secrecy has, in the second round of bidding, become the rule more than the exception.
Although he owns a newspaper with the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness," Bezos has required
state and local officials involved in negotiations to sign non-disclosure agreements. With the
opportunity to revisit and revise their bids (i.e., increase their dollar value), the
transition from public spectacle to backroom dealing introduces yet another cause for concern.
If the finalists don't apprise citizens of their bids' details, the citizens can't weigh the
costs and benefits and determine whether inviting the company into their midst will be a net
positive or net negative.
Amazon's pursuit of public tithes and offerings is matched by its relentless obsession with
avoiding taxes. Employing a legion of accountants and lawyers, the company has become a master
at navigating the tax code and exploiting every loophole. Illegality is not the issue here but
rather a tax system that allows mammoth corporations to operate with huge tax advantages not
available to mom-and-pop shops on Main Street.
Of course Amazon isn't unique in its desire to avoid the taxman. It is, however, unrivaled
in its ability to do so. Last fall's debate concerning the merits of lowering the corporate tax
rate from 35 percent to 20 percent was, for Amazon, a moot point. In the five years from 2012
to 2016, Amazon paid an effective federal income tax rate of only 11.4 percent.
The company fared even better in 2017. Despite posting a $5.6 billion profit, Amazon didn't
pay a single cent in federal taxes, according to a recent report from the Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policy. What's more, Amazon projects it will receive an additional $789 million in
kickbacks from last year's tax reform bill.
Even by the standards of mammoth corporations, this is impressive. By way of comparison,
Walmart -- no stranger to corporate welfare and tax avoidance -- has paid $64 billion in
corporate income tax since 2008. Amazon? Just $1.4 billion.
Amazon's tax-avoidance success can be attributed to two things: avoiding the collection of
sales taxes and stashing profits in overseas tax havens. The IRS estimates that Amazon has
dodged more than $1.5 billion in taxes by funneling the patents of its intellectual property
behind the walls of its European headquarters city, Luxembourg -- a widely used corporate tax
haven. Again, nothing illegal here, but there's something wrong with a tax system that allows
it.
From day one, Amazon's business model involved legally avoiding any obligation to collect
sales taxes, and then using the subsequent pricing advantage to gain market share. It did this
by first locating its warehouses in very few states, most of which did not have a sales tax. It
then shipped its goods to customers that resided in other states that did have sales tax. This
game plan allowed Amazon to avoid what is known as "nexus" in sales-tax states, meaning that
those states could not compel it to collect the tax -- a two to 10 percent competitive
advantage over its brick-and-mortar counterparts.
Amazon exploited this tax advantage for years until state legislatures -- realizing how much
revenue they were losing -- gradually began passing legislation requiring Internet retailers to
collect sales taxes for items purchased by their citizens. In 2012, having already benefited
from this competitive advantage for more than a decade and a half, Bezos -- under the pretense
of a "level playing field" -- began advocating for federal legislation that would require
Internet retailers to collect sales tax. No such legislation has been passed.
And despite Bezos's carefully calculated public relations posturing, Amazon's advantage over
brick-and-mortar retailers persists: not only does Amazon not collect city and county sales
taxes (where applicable) but it also doesn't, with few exceptions, collect sales tax on items
sold by third-party distributors on Amazon Marketplace -- sales that account for more than half
of Amazon's sales.
It is difficult to overstate how instrumental tax breaks and tax avoidance have been in
Amazon's unprecedented growth. As Bezos made clear in his first letter to shareholders in 1997,
Amazon's business plan is predicated on amassing long-term market share in lieu of short-term
profits. As a result, the company operates on razor-thin margins in some retail categories,
while actually taking losses in others.
Amazon has not squandered these competitive advantages. Half of online retail purchases are
made through Amazon, and more than half of American households are enrolled in the Amazon Prime
program -- a subscription service that engenders platform loyalty and leads to increases in
consumer spending.
In fact, Amazon's ascent and tactics have led an increasing number of public policy experts
to call for a renewed enforcement of America's antitrust laws. The concern is that Amazon has
used its market power to crush smaller competitors with a swath of anti-competitive practices,
including predatory pricing and market power advantages stemming from Amazon Marketplace --
Amazon's vast sales platform for third-party retailers.
Such practices may be a boon for consumers and Amazon stockholders, the reasoning goes, but
they are only possible because Amazon uses economic power to squeeze its retail partners on
pricing at various points in the production line, which harms the health of many other
businesses. In fact, some suggest this bullying tendency calls to mind the actions of John D.
Rockefeller in his dealings with railroad companies at the turn of the last century.
These monopolistic practices have squeezed local, state, and federal revenue streams in two
ways. Not only do these governments forego the collection of needed tax revenue but Amazon's
rise has also knocked out many brick-and-mortar competitors that previously had provided
streams of tax revenue. By wooing Amazon with taxpayer-funded subsidies and other giveaways,
government leaders are, in a very real sense, funding the destruction of their own tax base.
There is little evidence that such taxpayer-funded inducements have resulted in a net positive
to the states and localities doling out the subsidies.
By forsaking the tenets of free market orthodoxy, forgoing the collection of much-needed tax
revenue, and giving big businesses major competitive advantages, state and local governments
have generated increasing controversy and political enmity from both ends of the political
spectrum. And yet, though bipartisan accusations of crony capitalism and corporate welfare
abound, such opposition does little to dissuade state and local governments from loosening the
public purse strings in their efforts to woo big corporations such as Amazon.
Daniel Kishi is associate editor of The American Conservative. Follow him on
Twitter:@DanielMKishi .
These findings reminded me of the suggestion in Patrick Deneen's recently released
Why Liberalism Failed that the political ideology of liberalism drives us apart, making us more lonely and polarized
than ever. As Christine Emba
writes in her Washington Post review of Deneen's book:
As liberalism has progressed, it has done so by ever more efficiently liberating each individual from "particular places,
relationships, memberships, and even identities-unless they have been chosen, are worn lightly, and can be revised or
abandoned at will." In the process, it has scoured anything that could hold stable meaning and connection from our modern
landscape-culture has been disintegrated, family bonds devalued, connections to the past cut off, an understanding of the
common good all but disappeared.
likbez
Our political differences are strengthening, with an increasing number of urban Americans moving further left and more than
half of rural voters (54 percent)
There is actually no way to move to the left in the two party system installed in the USA. The Democratic Party is just another
neoliberal party. Bill Clinton sold it to Wall Street long ago.
Neoliberalism uses identity wedge to split the voters into various groups which in turn are corralled into two camps representing
on the federal level two almost identical militaristic, oligarchical parties to eliminate any threat to the status quo.
And they do very skillfully and successfully. Trump is just a minor deviation from the rule (or like Obama is the confirmation
of the rule "change we can believe in" so to speak). And he did capitulate to neocons just two months after inauguration. While
he was from the very beginning a "bastard neoliberal" -- neoliberal that denies the value of implicit coercion of neoliberal globalization
in favor of open bullying of trade partners. Kind of "neoliberalism for a single exceptional country."
The current catfight between different oligarchic groups for power (Russiagate vs. Spygate ) might well be just a smoke screen
for the coming crisis of neoliberalism in the USA, which is unable to lift the standard of living of the lower 80% of population,
and neoliberal propaganda after 40 or so years lost its power, much like communist propaganda in the same time frame.
The tenacity with which Clinton-Obama wing of Democratic Party wants Trump to be removed is just a testament of the political
power of neoliberals and neocons in the USA as they are merged with the "deep state." No deviations from the party line are allowed.
There are, in my judgment, three great novels that explore American military life in the
twentieth century. They are, in order of publication, Guard of Honor (1948) by James
Gould Cozzens, From Here To Eternity (1951) by James Jones, and The Sand Pebbles
(1962) by Richard McKenna.
The first is a book about airmen, set at a stateside air base during World War II. The
second is a soldier's story, its setting Schofield Barracks in the territory of Hawaii on the
eve of Pearl Harbor. In The Sand Pebbles, the focus is on sailors. It takes place in
China during the 1920s when U.S. Navy gunboats patrolled the Yangtze River and its
tributaries.
As far as I can tell, none of the three enjoys much of a following today. Despite winning
the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Guard of Honor has all but vanished. To the extent that
the other two retain any cultural salience, they do so as movies, superb in the case of From
Here to Eternity , colorful but mediocre in the case of The Sand Pebbles.
Yet for any American seeking an intimate account of military service, all three novels
remain worth reading. Times change, as do uniforms, weapons, and tactics, but certain
fundamentals of military life endure. Leaders and led see matters differently, nurse different
expectations, and respond to different motivations. The perspective back at higher headquarters
(or up on the bridge) differs from the way things look to those dealing with the challenges of
a typical duty day. The biggest difference of all is between inside and outside -- between
those in uniform and the civilians who necessarily inhabit another world. Each in his own way,
Cozzens, Jones, and McKenna unpack those differences with sensitivity and insight.
Of the three, McKenna's novel in particular deserves revival, not only because of its
impressive literary qualities, but because the story it tells has renewed relevance to the
present day. It's a story about the role that foreign powers, including the United States,
played in the emergence of modern China.
Prompted in part by the ostensible North Korean threat, but more broadly by the ongoing rise
of China and uncertainty about China's ultimate ambitions, the American military establishment
will almost inevitably be directing more of its attention toward East Asia in the coming years.
To be sure, the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism continues and appears
unlikely to conclude anytime soon. Yet the character of that conflict is changing. Having come
up short in its efforts to pacify the Islamic world, the United States is increasingly inclined
to rely on proxies, generously supported by air power, to carry on the jihadist fight in
preference to committing large numbers of U.S. troops. Almost imperceptibly, East Asia is
encroaching upon and will eventually eclipse the Greater Middle East in the Pentagon's
hierarchy of strategic priorities.
It's this reshuffling of Pentagon priorities that endows The Sand Pebbles with
renewed significance. If past is prologue, McKenna's fictionalized account of actual events
that occurred 90 years ago involving U.S. forces in China should provide context for anyone
intent on employing American military power to check China today.
Of course, the armed forces of the United States have a long history of involvement in East
Asia. Ever since 1898, when it liberated, occupied, and subsequently annexed the Philippines,
the United States has maintained an enduring military presence in that part of the world.
To the extent that Americans are even dimly aware of what that presence has entailed, they
probably think in terms of three 20th-century Asian wars: the first in the 1940s against Japan;
the second during the 1950s in Korea; the third from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s in
Vietnam. In each, whether as ally or adversary, China figured prominently.
Yet even before the attack on Pearl Harbor initiated the first of those wars, U.S. air,
land, and naval forces had been active in and around China. Dreams of gaining access to a
lucrative "China Market" numbered among the factors that persuaded the United States to annex
the Philippines in the first place. In 1900, U.S. troops participated in the China Relief
Expedition, a multilateral intervention mounted to suppress the so-called Boxer Rebellion,
which sought to expel foreigners and end outside interference in Chinese affairs. The mission
succeeded and the U.S. military stayed on. Army and Marine Corps units established garrisons in
"treaty ports" such as Shanghai and Tientsin.
Decades earlier, the U.S. Navy had begun making periodic forays into China's inland
waterways. In the early 20th century, employing small shallow-draft vessels captured from Spain
in 1898, this presence became increasingly formalized. As American commercial and missionary
interests in China grew, the Navy inaugurated what it called the Yangtze Patrol, with Congress
appropriating funds to construct a flotilla of purpose-built gunboats for patrolling the river
and its tributaries. Under the direction of COMYANGPAT back in Shanghai, small warships flying
the Stars-and-Stripes sailed up and down the Yangtze's immense length to "protect American
lives and property."
This is the story that McKenna, himself a YANGPAT veteran, recounts, focusing on a single
fictional ship the U.S.S. San Pablo. Known as "Sand Pebbles," the few dozen sailors
comprising the San Pablo's crew are all lifers. A rough bunch, their interests rarely
extend beyond drinking and whoring. In 1920s China, an American sailor's modest paycheck
provides ample funds for both pursuits.
Even afloat, life for the Sand Pebbles is more than agreeable. Onboard the San Pablo,
an unofficial second crew consisting of local Chinese -- "contractors," we would call them
today -- does the dirty work and the heavy lifting. The Americans stay topside, performing
routines and rituals meant to convey an image of power and dominance.
San Pablo is a puny and lightly armed ship. Yet it exists to convey a big impression,
thereby sustaining the privileged position that the United States and the other imperial powers
enjoyed in China.
The revolutionary turmoil engulfing China in the 1920s necessarily challenged this
proposition. Nationalist fervor gripped large parts of the population. Imperial privilege
stoked popular resentment, which made San Pablo 's position increasingly untenable, even
if the Sand Pebbles themselves were blind to what was coming. That their own eminently
comfortable circumstances might be at risk was literally unimaginable.
McKenna's narrative describes how the world of the Sand Pebbles fell apart. His nominal
protagonist is Jake Holman, a machinist mate with a mystical relationship to machinery. Jake
loathes the spit-and-polish routine topside and wants nothing more than to remain below decks
in the engine compartment, performing duties that on San Pablo white American sailors
have long since ceased to do. In the eyes of his shipmates, therefore, Jake represents a threat
to the division of labor that underwrites their comforts.
The ship's captain, one of only two commissioned officers assigned to San Pablo,
likewise sees Jake as a threat to the status quo. To my mind, Lieutenant Collins is McKenna's
most intriguing creation and the novel's true focal point. Although the Sand Pebbles are
oblivious to how they may figure in some larger picture, for Collins the larger picture is a
continuing preoccupation. He sees his little ship, the entire U.S. Navy, America's providential
purpose, and the fate of Western civilization as all of a piece. Serious, sober, and dutiful,
he is also something of a fanatic.
Collins dimly perceives that powerful forces within China pose a direct threat not only to
the existing U.S. position there, but to his own worldview. Yet he considers the prospect of
accommodating those forces as not only intolerable, but inconceivable. So in the book's
culminating episode he leads Jake and several other Sand Pebbles on a symbolic but utterly
futile gesture of resistance. Fancying that he is thereby salvaging his ship's honor (and his
own as well), he succeeds merely in killing his own men.
I interpret McKenna as suggesting that there is no honor in denying reality. Only waste and
needless sacrifice result. Today a national security establishment as blind to reality as
Lieutenant Collins presides over futile gestures far more costly than those inflicted upon the
Sand Pebbles. It's not fiction and it's happening right before our eyes.
So skip the movie. But read McKenna's book. And then reflect on its relevance to the present
day.
"... Despite receiving all this government money, Musk's company has not shown demonstrable results. Yesterday, Bloomberg released a story under the headline "Tesla Doesn't Burn Fuel, It Burns Cash," detailing how the company spends $6,500 a minute and may run out of money by the end of the year. Just weeks ago, Moody's downgraded Tesla's credit rating due to its seeming inability to meet deadlines. Mr. Musk's estimate of producing 20,000 vehicles in December, for instance, turned into just over 2,400 in the entire fourth quarter. ..."
"... Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty. ..."
Anyone familiar with the hit sitcom Seinfeld knows that Cosmo Kramer, the
rambunctious, eccentric neighbor of Jerry Seinfeld, had a lot of big ideas. From make-your-own-pizza parlors to
tie dispensers to the
infamous " mansierre
," Kramer was -- in his own mind -- a world-changing revolutionary.
Of course, aside from one notable exception ( the Regis Philbin-approved pop-out coffee table
book ), none of his ideas ever panned out. But lack of achievement is exactly what viewers
expected every week. The whole fun of Kramer was his dream-big mentality and the impracticality
that came with it.
No one on the show was senseless enough to support Kramer in his work. In fact, in one
episode, Leland fired
him even though he did not hold any standing position. Kramer couldn't even keep a job at a bagel store for
longer than a few days. It was his friends' open refrigerators that provided him with the life
support he needed to continue dreaming and inventing.
This comedy sitcom case study is ironically much more sensible than what occurs in real
life. There are plenty of Cosmo Kramers out in the world today with ideas that are even more
ambitious than anything Kramerica Industries could have
formulated. The only difference is that these individuals have armies of lobbyists that can
convince our spendthrift government to finance their ideas, even though they have yet to pass
any free-market smell tests.
Perhaps the most recent example of such a politically astute, Kramer-like figure is Elon
Musk. This larger-than-life media personality plans to do everything from sending men to the
moon and Mars, to creating a 700-miles-per-hour tunnel transportation system, to turbocharging
human brains by implanting computers.
All of these are excellent ideas, to be sure, but ones that bear significant amounts of
risk. Unfortunately, Mr. Musk does not seem willing to bear all the risk himself. His business
model revolves around hiring experts to navigate the waters of the Washington swamp to discover
ways to make the American people pick up the tab.
Take Tesla, for example. The car company was created to bring electric vehicles to the
general public en masse -- a mission that oddly requires over $1
million in lobbying expenditures annually. As a result, the cars are financed by over $280
million in federal tax incentives, including a $7,500 federal tax break, and tens of millions
more in state rebates and development fees.
Despite receiving all this government money, Musk's company has not shown demonstrable
results. Yesterday, Bloomberg released a story under the headline "Tesla Doesn't Burn
Fuel, It Burns Cash," detailing how the company spends $6,500 a minute and may run out of money
by the end of the year. Just weeks ago, Moody's
downgraded Tesla's credit rating due to its seeming inability to meet deadlines. Mr. Musk's
estimate of producing 20,000 vehicles in
December, for instance, turned into just over 2,400 in the entire fourth quarter.
It is no wonder that when these government subsidies die, electric vehicle sales plummet.
Three years ago, sales sunk by
more than 80 percent in the state of Georgia when the $5,000 state tax credit phased out.
Last year, sales declined by
60 percent when its EV tax breaks sharply fell. These empirical case studies do not paint a
positive picture of Tesla's future, especially given that its federal tax break is expected to phase out
sometime this year. Perhaps funding Kramer's big ball of oil in the name of alleviating
the world's spillage problems would have been just as, if not more, fruitful.
SpaceX is no better. Roughly 85 percent of its contracts come directly from the federal
government. The aerospace manufacturer hit a
then-personal record of $2 million in annual lobbying spending not long ago as it continued
its quest to conquer the stars. New York magazine once asked
"Are Elon Musk's Aggressive Lobbyists Bad for Silicon Valley? " but without them the
government-dependent company might not even exist.
SpaceX has already received roughly
$15 billion in subsidy guarantees from Texas, and despite
meeting just one sixth of the hiring goals it promised, it is requesting
$5 million more . Similarly, even though SpaceX has already received over $70 million from
the federal government to develop its BFR, the company would
like more on that front as well.
Meanwhile, just last week, NASA's Office of Inspector General found that SpaceX has raised the cost of some
launches by over 50 percent due to having "a better understanding of the costs involved after
several years of experience with cargo resupply missions." This new development means that the
government's deal -- already diluted by costly rocket failures -- continues to get worse and
worse.
And don't even get me started on SolarCity, Mr. Musk's solar panel company, which has still
not turned an annual profit despite receiving over $490
million in grants from the Treasury Department over the years and the government covering
30 percent of its installation costs.
As a free market capitalist, I am rooting for Mr. Musk to pull it together and succeed. But
I don't want the federal government to waste any more of Americans' hard-earned cash to make it
happen.
We will never know what the well-intentioned Cosmo Kramer could have accomplished had Jerry
and the rest of the gang cut him off from their refrigerators, homes, and other welfare as a
means of forcing him to follow through with his goals. However, we can still explore how taking
away such measures of comfort will affect Elon Musk's motivation and decision-making.
Ironically, it just may be the recipe for success that the ambitious CEO needs.
Norm Singleton is the chairman of Campaign for Liberty.
There are legitimate questions to ask regarding tesla, but SpaceX is a whole other issue.
Pretty much every rocket manufacturer gets massive government subsidies. SpaceX is not the
first and probably not the last. but their increase in price is still cost competitive
compared to other manufacturers.
Ford Says Farewell
America's most iconic automaker plans to drive almost all of their passenger sedans into the sunset by 2020.
By
Telly Davidson
•
May 16, 2018
1959 Ford Country Squire Station Wagon Advertisement Life Magazine November 10 1958
By SenseiAlan /Flickr/CreativeCommons
Ford Motor Company recently dropped a bombshell -- one that would have been largely
unthinkable before the Great Recession. FoMoCo announced that it would be phasing out virtually all passenger cars built
for the U.S./Canadian market (they will continue in Europe) by 2020, except for the upcoming Focus Active and
always-popular Mustang -- a move all the more grim in that it was founding father Henry Ford that pioneered the mass-market
sedan for both America and the world.
The Focus will be first to go this month, followed by the Taurus next March and the
Fiesta in May 2019.
Ford Motor Company was always the Eve to General Motors' Adam in Detroit, not only
making cars (and profits) by the trunkload, but leading the league in midcentury style. The "Jackie Kennedy"
Lincoln
Continental Town Car
.
The Thunderbird
. But during the "Big
Government" era of unapologetically high property taxes and ballooning environmental regulations, Ford suffered its
first postwar crash. Amid the 1975 fuel shortages, Congress passed -- and Detroit's own liberal Republican stalwart Gerald
Ford (despite some quibbles and misgivings) signed -- the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Act (CAFÉ), which started off by
requiring an 18 mpg standard by the 1978 model year (1975 models were around 13 mpg by average.) The standard would
rise to 19 mpg in 1979, 20 in 1980, and then not one but
two
mileage points per year through 1984 -- with massive, multi-million-dollar IRS and court-imposed fines if a manufacturer
was found to be non-compliant.
Like a small-town mayor futilely trying to resist a federal court order, Ford mocked
GM's newly streamlined "large" cars when they debuted for 1977 (GM had been planning to go on a diet even before CAFÉ,
and had vastly more R&D money than Ford or Chrysler). Ads noted that Ford's family-priced LTD sedan was now the same
length as a "downsized" (but still gargantuan by today's standards) new '77 Cadillac. Cynically, both Ford and Chrysler
made no secret of the fact that their 1978 model full-size cars would be the last of their kind (Cadillac also let
everyone know that their big 1978 Eldorado was heading for the exit door), encouraging not only the "buy it while you
still can!" panic buying of the hyperinflationary late '70s -- but also as good as telling customers that next year's
forcibly-downsized models would be decidedly inferior. Lincoln gave its Town Car and Mark V one last victory lap before
they went, and Ford also renewed the Mark V's shorter-wheelbase platform-mates the Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar for
1979. Still fuming at the imminent loss of their league-leaders, Ford so grossly overproduced for 1979 that Lincoln had
a backlog of 210 days' worth of cars by July of 1979,
effectively
giving them a 1980 model year.
Not surprisingly, the downsized 1979 Ford (and Chrysler) "full size" sedans initially
bombed -- sales declined drastically for the '79 LTD and Mercury Grand Marquis, and went off a cliff in 1980. And while the
Mark VI "only" fell by half of its 1979 numbers, the Town Car went off Thelma and Louise's cliff -- barely managing
one-third of its '79 numbers.
And all this was just a sampling of what became arguably the biggest one-year
euthanasia in Ford history, as the 1980 Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch (and their upscale twin, the luxury Lincoln
Versailles), and the iconic Pinto/Bobcat were all put to sleep at year's end. All but the Granada were canceled
outright, in nameplate as well as body style, with the Granada barely hanging on as a thinly-disguised Fairmont (Ford's
first big downsizing-era success, which kept the lights on at Dearborn during the 12-15 percent interest rate era from
1978 to 1983.)
Now the plot thickens. The first downsizing era was complete, but the second one, to
bring things into compliance for 1984-85 (and what Detroit assumed would be even more draconian) standards, was now
underway. Ford suffered catastrophic losses in 1980-82, and Chrysler had to beg a stern President Carter for a
too-big-to-fail bailout in 1979-80 to avoid bankruptcy, as they frantically redesigned their slow-selling car lines yet
again.
But out of this "Big Government" intrusion came the impetus to design what became
Ford's biggest successes in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s -- the 1983-88 and 1989-97 Thunderbird, the 1984-94 Ford
Tempo, and the 1986-95 Ford Taurus. (Already their 1981-90 Escort flirted with #1 bestseller status in recessionary
1982.) Meanwhile, arch-competitor GM euthanized all but the station wagons and the Chevy Caprice sedan (which lasted
until 1990) of their full-size 1977 lines in spring 1984. The cars GM replaced them with were engineering marvels
(except when it came to reliability, perhaps) of front-wheel-drive, V6-powered efficiency -- but as folksinger Malvina
Reynolds might have said, they all looked ticky-tacky and they all looked the same. GM suffered its largest decade-loss
in its then-history during the '80s, according to auto historian Paul Niedemeyer.
But just as it had in 1978, Ford held out -- and this time, the move paid off. As
Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. began relaxing CAFE laws (or at least refusing to raise the standards dramatically), the
"downsized" big cars of the first wave of downsizing that still remained in production began selling like
hotcakes -- especially to Greatest and Silent Generation traditionalists who wanted cars that reminded them of the
unapologetic luxury they drove in the 70s, when they were at the height of their earning power and still healthy. The
1991 LTD/Marquis looked much the same as they did in 1979, and the Town Car of 1989 (and its closest competitor, the '89
Chrysler Fifth Avenue) were virtual reruns of 1980. And the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (the only other GM survivor of
1984-85's "second downsizing") was still wearing its chrome-finned, formal-roofed, stately 1977 body all the way into
1992, with only a couple of reshaped-sheetmetal facelifts in between.
But Boomers had already been converted during the energy-conscious '70s to efficient
Japanese (and soon, Korean) cars. (Their Gen-X and Millennial children also would have no qualms at all about buying
"foreign.") By the late 80s and 90s, the Japanese were second to none in reliability, and rising suns like Hyundai and
Kia began offering league-leading, bumper-to-bumper warranties. As the
Roger &
Me
era of globalization took hold, even the saltiest WWII and Korea veterans
who were left began seriously considering Japanese and Korean autos -- given that the Asian automakers were consciously
building plants in the U.S. and Canada to erase the stigma of buying foreign (and head off potential tariffs), while the
allegedly "all American" Big 3 were sending jobs by the thousand to Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and eventually China.
The one big exception, however, was American trucks and vans -- including that ultimate
"soccer moms" symbol, the "minivan" (introduced by Chrysler in 1984 and Ford in 1985) and the luxury SUV. Because even
the biggest global-warming advocates and environmentalists had to concede that a civilized society needed ambulances,
hearses, construction, repair, and delivery trucks, and so forth, trucks were held to a significantly lower MPG
standard.
Conscious of his fellow Yuppies (and not wanting to be a gloomy Debbie Down-size-er
like Jimmy Carter), Bill Clinton said "No way!" to raising CAFE standards, much less cracking down hard on American-made
trucks, vans, Jeeps, and SUVs that were all the rage (and already paying the Big Three's bills) in the late '90s. And
naturally, Texas oilman George W. Bush (with his bestie, "Kenny-Boy" Lay of Enron) and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney barely
even touched fuel standards. The CAFÉ standard never rose above 27.5 mpg for passenger cars from 1985 all the way
through 2010 -- a full 25 years.
By 2010, the US auto industry was in the worst shape since the Great Depression, if
not the Carter years. GM was pulling itself out of bankruptcy, and cancelled their Saturn and Pontiac brands on
Halloween 2010 (Oldsmobile had been the first to the cemetery in the relatively prosperous June of 2004). Chrysler had
long ago put Plymouth and what was left of AMC/Eagle to sleep, and was even more bankrupt than GM. The only real
survivor was, ironically, Ford, thanks to its European partnerships and its red-hot truck/SUV presence, and the
ever-popular Mustang. (The Focus, Taurus, and Fusion were still doing well, although largely behind the Japanese and
Korean majors.) The Town Car (whose body dated to 1998) and Crown Victoria (which went back to 1991-92) finally died in
early 2012, after shutting down production at the end of August 2011. And though the iconic Lincoln Continental was
revived for 2017, it has largely failed to meet expectations.
So this was your life, Ford Motor Company. You invented the modern working-class
hero's sedan with the Model T, you survived and thrived as arguably midcentury middle-class America's most iconic
automaker, you stumbled badly and nearly OD'ed on gasoline and outdated styling through the last days of disco, but woke
up with Morning in America. "Big Gov'mint" forced you -- kicking and screaming -- to innovate in ways you didn't want to, but
that kept you alive during that time. And then, when deregulation happened, and the focus became trucks/minivans/SUVs
that didn't need year-to-year changes to stay popular, you had to play it as it laid.
Fare thee well, Ford sedans and wagons. It wouldn't have been the same without ya.
If oil prices his $100 a barrel as Citi is predicting next year (side effect of Trump's Iran move), this could
turn out badly for Ford.
I hope I have purchased my last gas car – a Prius Prime – a year ago. I am in my
later 60's and I like long range trips. At 50 mpg+ on gas, I will be able to afford to drive it when I am
retired. And for my about town commuting and short trips, I am averaging over 130 mpg – relying mostly upon the
battery. With luck, it will last until I am not up for long haul trips.
I hope to buy a fully self driving electric car in 4 years when I have finished paying off the Prius. My
wife is directionally challenged and we are likely to be somewhat rural, making Uber-like services less able.
In the mean time, she drives her 10 year old Toyota corolla, which gets quite good mileage.
I have driven gas guzzlers in my time, but given the amount I drive, I have decided to optimize my cars for
reliability and mileage. The Prius replaces a Suburu Forester that got ~ 23 mpg. It had over 230,000 miles on
it before it sustained enough damage from road debris that it wasn't worth repairing.
I don't need another suv or pickup, the kids are finally moving out.
Questionable but interesting. "Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again." Trump really believe like a typical bully.
In case of tough resistance he folds and appologize. Otherwise he tries to press opooneent into complete submission.
Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch. ..."
"... Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program. ..."
"... Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security. ..."
"... "Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof. ..."
For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental
disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies. The question
of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific
political direction? Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and
follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.
We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have
world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's
declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.
In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain;
and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take
reprisals.
Trump's Strategic Framework
The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more
intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a
corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity
or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and
further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In
other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's
policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives
would undermine US imperial rule.
Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran
Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US
sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question
Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.
Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged
Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.
Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes
that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense
strategy.
Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change,
reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the
Shah.
The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle
East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US,
dubbed 'the Lobby'.
Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented
power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power
to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the
executive branch.
Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and
adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street.
Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the
peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to
sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring
Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump
believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by
sanctions.
Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China
Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war
and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and
directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered
surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's
policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.
Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization
of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached
an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of
hostility.
However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace
overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace
settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear
disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved
inspectors.
Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that
military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear
program.
Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to
reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end
industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance
monitored quarterly by the US. Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger
sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and
restrictions on Chinese goods and services.
Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's
northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis. Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes
that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance
Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.
Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis
Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed! Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh
sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies. His military intervention will
inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a
nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately
losing war.
Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US
collaborators. The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Tel Aviv's bombing [of Iran] will lead to counter-attacks
in Israel.
Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.
Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction.
Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains
the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for
exports to the US. China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading
partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia. China has greater resilience and
capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic
power house.
Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world
depression.
Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral
nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from
China.
Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China. Kim will
offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal,
Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.
Conclusion
Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his
assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think
his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war
with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its
companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.
Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production
sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have
links with five continents. Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its
sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions. Trump is heading for
defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the
process.
Epilogue
Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate,
in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman'
tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or
face the worst from the President? I don't think so.
Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by
pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and
signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia. Nixon successfully promoted peaceful
co-existence.
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction."
indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..
You didn't have to be genius to see this coming. In fact, NK played Trump as
expected. Anything else would have been gross negligence by their diplomatic
negotiators. Getting Trump to speculate about a prospective Nobel (for himself) for bringing nuclear
peace to the Pacific was baiting the hook nicely.
The US is now dealing from a position of weakness. Let's see what NK can extract in terms of
keeping their weapons and gaining economic assistance in return for getting the meetings back
on track.
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also
given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that
the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the
question.
The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the twe fleet standard had to lowered
to one fleet.
Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was
lowered to one and half.
What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria.
In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their
empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East.
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the
powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.
But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'.
I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.
I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased
hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again.
However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure,
which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more
apposite slogan.
Wall Street collapsing will not cause a world depression, but will reflect the very real
depression that will arise from huge disruptions to the US supply chain and energy costs and
the knock-on effect that will have on the global economy.
A strike on Iran won't by itself be enough to cripple the US economy, but the loss of a
single aircraft carrier might be enough of a pull on a thread that unravels the magical
mantle of military force that currently holds the empire together and keeps the vassal-states
in line to cause things to go pear-shaped quickly.
Nobody can accuse Donald of not being obedient executioner of tasks given by his Masters.
You don't have to be dark skinned to reside in Masters quarters, orange haired and white is
ok too..
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family
connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
On what basis does the author say that? Trump is smart enough to know that China is
growing as an economic and military power, not declining.
A fairly poorly (and likely hastily) written article.
Trump is under the control of Zionists just as is the U.S. gov with Zionist dual citizens in
control of every facet and has been since 1913 when the Zionists created the FED and the IRS.
Trump is like the Roman emperor Caligula and is a Trojan Horse for the Zionist agenda of a
NWO and is continuing the tradition of the U.S. gov breaking its word about everything, just
ask the native American Indians.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing. The agreement
had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified. Our "allies" in Europe and
Asia knew that and their reaction has not been nearly as negative as the author of this
column has claimed.
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because
RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup"
took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has
dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of
European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke
deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before
Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop
demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since
the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the
oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to
gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing,
agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed
international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the
videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting
for Russia in Syria, etc. etc.
Xi of China has pretty impressive creditials but this post is
overly long anyway.
RESULTS COUNT MORE THAN WORDS!
Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.
• Agree: CalDre
I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the
apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things,
ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous
whining.
When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent
system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as
it did for WTO & Globalization now.
Of course any moronic comments about only China is espionaging US IPR & rise purely due
to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.
Well, he is not meeting with North Korea either, since Kim didn't chicken out, and is not
that stupid as to offer his head on the plate! Bolton made sure of that.
Hastily written article cobbled by bits of public info here & there without deep
analysis.
1. Today NK declared they have indefinitely terminate all high level exchange with SK. If
Trumps insisted on another Libya & Iraq defank & ending model advocate by Bolton,
meeting with Trumps will be cancelled. Trumps needs the Korea peace credit to get his Nobel
Prize, so as to booster his coming Nov election win. Kim has baited Trumps to put him in
tight corner now, hence WH still insisting to go ahead prepare for the meeting.
If venue does changed to Beijing from Trumps' choice of Spore (Kim's cargo plane can't fly
his limousine so far, also a risk of him as Spore is US vassal), we will see Kim has K.O.
Trumps in another round. Kim will get to keep its nuke weapon until USM remove its Korea
present, clear all sanctions, with UNSC guaranteed its safety. If Trumps has the meeting
cancelled, then China can roll out its own play book as unchallenged leader in solving Korea
crisis. Either way, Trumps will lost influence to China.
2. Trade war with China has exposed ZUS deep weakness in its brinkmanship when china
retaliated with no compromise. Four most senior trade & treasury secs scrambled 10,000
miles to Beijing to seek detente, but return empty handed in 2 days with their ridiculous
demands in hubris. Still China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no
longer a threat to US security.
Btw, this author has wrongly written about the $100B trade tariff, its only $50B so far.
Another additional $100B is only a empty threat ZUS dare not release to avoid China
retaliation.
3. JCPOA cancelling is godsend move.
First, EU with Germany & France having huge investments in Iran is crying loud that they
have to be free from been ZUS vassal. If they caved in to ZUS sanction threat, then EU bosses – Macron & Merkel will
face revolt from Europe business sector. China & Russia will be happy to pick up whatever
investments in fire sales.
If EU decided to rebel & chart its own destiny with a little spine, then ZUS has lost
its tight clutch over EU. EU has juz announced to trade Iran oil in Euro, hasten
de-dollarization. The geopolitical game is changing tide. In either way of EU decision, China
& Russia win.
Now Iran will continue to enjoy free trades with everyone except ZUS that it dislike most,
& win moral high ground in international standing by keeping to JCPOA.
ZUS has juz ordered Trumps to shoot its own foot. It pay the high price of losing every
credibility in international agreement, forced EU into seeking independency, have EU trade in
Euro, with Iran, China & Russia all smiling.
Of course, but I just wanted to make a point not write a book or even a PhD thesis. thanks
for the supplementary material though. Your comments about oil are spot on as you know. The wars were about smashing some real
competition.
Somebody has to shovel the BS occasionally, to keep the smell down here. I guess it's my
turn today, sigh.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing.
Then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many of the major European
countries must also be lying when they say that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.
The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the JCPOA; see UNSC resolution 2231.
According to the UN treaty, UNSC resolutions are automatically the law of the land,
even in the USA -- no Senate ratification needed.
Have you ever made a comment that was other than your mere and clearly biased opinion? Try
it sometime; it would be interesting to see what evidence you provide to support such
transparently erroneous ideas.
Trump's only strategy is to do what Israel orders him to do. The Neocon Jews and their friends including the Jew In Chief of
the White House Jared Kushner are running the show. You can easily see this in ... Niki Haley's presentation before the UN including
walking out before the Palestinian Rep had a chance to speak.
Trump is up to his arms in shady deals with Jewish financiers of his properties and they
will get what they want from him politically. It's Israel against the world and the US is
nothing more than their war whore. More people will die for this strategy that comes from
formerly Tel Aviv and now from the Magic Jewish Capital called Jerusalem.
New York City's Hip Hop station Hot 97's morning show, "Ebro in the Morning," dedicated an
entire segment to yesterday's demonstration in Gaza where the two blasted Israel and
President Donald Trump http://pic.twitter.com/43XIqhKFWZ
-- Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) May 15, 2018
Hadid posted screen shots of Al Jazeera's coverage alongside an image of the Nakba with text
written by a relative,
"Almost One Million Palestinians were violently forced out of their country and never allowed
back to Palestine. The Hadid family was amongst them and they fled in fear to Syria where
they became refugees."
Why are these important? Because they have millions of followers on social media .because
their audience and followers are the coming voter and leadership force .for better or worse
..and for Israel its the 'worse'.
Gigi Hadid for instance has 9 million followers on twitter.
Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president
This true. BUT ..'if' any criminal wrong doing by Trump before he was president is revealed in the
course of the Russia investigation he can be indicted for that after he is out of office. IN ADDITION ..'if' any criminal wrong doing is revealed in Trump's businesses then any
persons involved in it within his businesses including his sons or daughter can be indicted. And now, as they have no presidential protection.
imo .this is what Trump is most afraid of ..some criminal business like money laundering
being exposed. not that Mueller will find Russian election collusion.
"Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday,
Tillerson dropped this truth bomb:
"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative
realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway
to relinquishing our freedom."
Woof.
..
Why is this important? Because the graduating class of VMI selects its speakers so that
tells you where the minds of the elite military schools are on Trumpism.
Former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden's new book The Assault on Intelligence: American
National Security in an Age of Lies wants to be the manifesto behind an intelligence
community coup. It ends up reading like outtakes from Dr. Strangelove .
Trump cannot discern truth from falsehood, Hayden says, and is the product of too much
fact-free thinking, especially on social media ("computational propaganda" where people can
"publish without credentials") where lies are deployed by the Russians to destroy the United
States. Instead Hayden calls for artificial intelligence and a media truth-rating system to
"purify our discourse" and help "defend it against inauthentic stimulation."
Hayden believes in the "fragility of civilization" as clearly as he believes there is a
"FOX/Trump/RT" alliance in place to exploit it. Under Trump, "post-truth is pre-fascism, and to
abandon facts is to abandon freedom." Hayden claims Trump has a "glandular aversion" to even
thinking about how "Russia has been actively seeking to damage the fabric of American
democracy."
Salvation, it would seem, depends on the intelligence community. Hayden makes clear,
ominously quoting conversations with anonymous IC officers, that no one else is protecting
America from these online threats to our precious bodily fluids .
He warns that "the structures we rely on to prevent civil war and societal collapse are
under stress." The IC on the other hand "pursues Enlightenment values [and] is essential
not just to American safety but to American liberty."
Hayden recalls how he reminded a lad fresh to the IC to "protect yourself. And above all
protect the institution. American still needs it." He has a bit of advice about the CIA: "We
are accustomed to relying on their truth to protect us from foreign enemies. Now we may need
their truth to save us from ourselves." The relationship between Trump and the IC, Hayden
threatens, is "contentious, divisive, and unpredictable" in these "uncharted waters for the
Republic."
Simply put, Hayden's book is blowing 10 dog whistles at once. Arise ye patriots [of
neoliberalism] of Langley and Fort Meade!
Yet for all his emphasis on truth, Hayden is curiously lax in presenting actual evidence of
the apocalypse. You are left to believe because Hayden says you must: paternalism at its best.
Plus, to disbelieve is to side with Putin. The best we get are executive summary-like
statements along the lines of "There is clear evidence of what I would call convergence, the
convergence of a mutually reinforcing swirl of Presidential tweets and statements, Russian
influenced social media, alt right websites and talk radio, Russian 'white' press like RT and
even mainstream U.S. media like Fox News."
With that established, Hayden informs us that when the IC tried to warn Trump of the Russian
plot, he "rejected a fact-based intel assessment because it was inconsistent with a preexisting
world view or because it was politically inconvenient, the stuff of ideological
authoritarianism not pragmatic democracy." Comrade, er, Candidate Trump, says Hayden
matter-of-factly, "did sound a lot like Vladimir Putin." The two men, he declaims, are "Russian
soulmates."
Hayden figures that if you've read this far into his polemic, he might as well just splurge
the rest of his notes on you. Trump is "uninformed, lazy, dishonest, off the charts, rejects
the premise objective reality even existed." He's fueled by Russian money (no evidence of this
is presented in the book, Hayden says, because it's hidden in the tax returns, as if Line 42 on
Trump's 1040 would read "Putin Black Funds $5 mil," and the IRS, which does have the returns,
overlooked that).
Trump is an "unwitting agent" of Putin, which Hayden tells us in Russian is polezni
durak , so you can see he knows his Cold War lingo. We hear how Wikileaks worked with the
Russkies, how Trump Jr. worked with the Russkies, how the Russkies wormed their way into Tower
so they could see the Big Board, how the whole brouhaha over #TakeAKnee was Russian meddling,
and how Jill Stein existed to "bleed off votes from Clinton" -- every Mueller fan-fiction trope
tumbling from the pages like crumbs left over from an earlier reader.
That's why The Assault on Intelligence: American National Security in an Age of Lies
reads like as a polemic. But it also fails as a book.
There are pages of filler, jumbled blog post-like chapters about substate actors and global
tectonics. Hayden writes in a recognizable style that might be called Bad Military, where
everything must eventually be tied to some Big Idea, preferably with classical references
Googled-up to add gravitas.
So it is not enough for Hayden to state Trump is a liar. He has to blame Trump for usurping
the entire body of Western thought: "We are in a post-truth world, a world in which decisions
are far more based upon emotion and preference. And that's an overturning of the Western way of
thought since the Enlightenment." Bad things are Hobbesian; good things Jeffersonian,
Madisonian, or Hamiltonian. People Hayden agrees with get adjectival modifiers before their
names: the perceptive scholar ____, the iconic journalist ____, the legendary case officer
____. It makes for tiresome reading, like it's Sunday night edging 4 a.m. and you still have
nine undergrad papers on the causes of the Civil War to grade.
Hayden is openly contemptuous of the American people, seeing them as brutes who need to be
led around, either by the Russians, as he sees it now, or by the IC, as he wishes it to be.
Proof of how dumb we are? Hayden cites a poll showing 83 percent of Republicans and 27 percent
of Democrats don't believe the IC analysis that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when they
damn well should. Further proof? Russian bots at work on Twitter influencing conservative minds
by using the hashtags #God and #Benghazi.
In our odd times, Hayden is a Hero of the Resistance. Seemingly forgotten is that, as head
of the NSA, he implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth
Amendment, itself a product of the Enlightenment, justifying his unconstitutional actions with
a mishmash of post-truth platitudes and still-secret legal findings. Hayden also supported
torture during the War on Terror, but whatever.
This book-length swipe right for the IC leaves out the slam dunk work those agencies did on
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Any concern about political motives inside the IC is swept
away as "baseless." Gina
Haspel , who oversaw the torture program, is an "inspired choice" to head CIA. Hayden
writes for the rubes, proclaiming that the IC produces facts when in reality even good intel
can only be assessments and ambiguous conclusions.
That people so readily overlook Hayden's sins simply because he rolls off snark against
Trump speaks to our naiveté. That men like Hayden retain their security clearances while
serving as authors and paid commentators to outlets like CNN speaks to how deep the roots of
the Deep State reach. That some troubled Jack D. Ripper squirreled inside the IC might
take this pablum seriously is frightening.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
He's not blinded by hate. If you actually read the book, he describes his issues with Obama,
Clinton and everyone else. The fact remains he outlined the truth: Trump is a bumbling fool
who cannot distinguish truth fro fiction and is the most corrupt president ever to inhabit
the oval office, and has no idea what he's doing.
This interesting article states:
Gina Haspel, who oversaw the torture program, is an 'inspired choice' to head CIA. Really, torture is used by gangsters and other underworld villains. Therefore, I ask based
on the evidence against governments. "Are We Seeing Government by Gangsters"?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2018/03/are-we-seeing-government-by-gangsters.html
The guy sounds like a certain Senator from Wisconsin:
"The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has
sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have
had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer – the finest
homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."
Peter Van Buren reminds us all: "Seemingly forgotten is that, as head of the NSA, he
implemented blanket surveillance of American citizens in a rape of the Fourth Amendment "
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Barker points out that Marx was correct that "capitalism has an inbuilt tendency to destroy
itself." I would add that Marx's view that capitalism was heretofore the most revolutionary
force in human history is also true. From the Communist
Manifesto :
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal,
patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that
bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and
man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly
ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in
the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value,
and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and
political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up
to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the
man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the
family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the
Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most
slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has
accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic
cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations
and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of
production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of
society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary,
the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising
of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty
and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen
relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away,
all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into
air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his
real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the
entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish
connexions everywhere.
You see what he means here. Capitalism -- for Marx, the merchant class (the "bourgeoisie")
were the carriers of capitalism -- turns everything into a market. Capitalism is a
revolutionary force that disrupts and desacralizes all things. All that talk in The Benedict Option about "liquid modernity"? That's based in Marx, actually.
Zygmunt Bauman, the late sociologist from whom I took the idea, was a Marxist.
Look, most of us conservatives in the West are to some degree supporters of the free market.
What we missed for a very long time was that it is hard to support a fully free market while at
the same time expecting our social institutions -- the family, the church, and so forth -- to
remain stable. This is an insight of Marx's that we conservatives -- and even conservative
Christians -- ought to absorb. I write about this a lot, though not in specific Marxist
terms.
The thing is, Christian Democratic parties throughout Western Europe have largely absorbed
this truth. Catholic social teaching is based in these insights as well. They aren't
necessarily against the free market, but rather say that the market must be tempered
for the common good.
That wasn't Marx's view, obviously. Marx thought the free market was itself wicked, and
ought to be totally controlled by the state. We know where that all ended up: with a hundred
million dead, and entire economies and societies destroyed.
But we can agree that Marx was right to diagnose the revolutionary nature of capitalism, if
catastrophically wrong about the cure for capitalism's excesses. If that was as far as Jason
Barker went, that would be fine. But he doesn't -- and this is the warning. Barker
continues:
The key factor in Marx's intellectual legacy in our present-day society is not
"philosophy" but "critique," or what he described in 1843 as "the ruthless criticism of all
that exists: ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and
in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." "The
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it," he
wrote in 1845.
Racial and sexual oppression have been added to the dynamic of class exploitation. Social
justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, owe something of an unspoken debt to
Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the "eternal truths" of our age. Such movements
recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class
and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.
We have become used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to
change ourselves. But enlightened or rational thinking is not enough, since the norms of
thinking are already skewed by the structures of male privilege and social hierarchy, even
down to the language we use. Changing those norms entails changing the very foundations of
society.
There it is, reader. There is the "cultural Marxism" that you hear so much about, and that
so many on the left deny. It is in the Marxist principle that there is no such thing as truth;
there is only power.
Lenin understood this well. This is the meaning of his famous dictum, "Who, whom?" In Lenin's view,
co-existence with capitalism was not possible. The only question was whether or not the
communists will smash the capitalists first, or the other way around. One way of interpreting
this is to say that the moral value of an action depends on who is doing it to
whom .
This is why it is pointless for us conservatives and old-school liberals to stand around
identifying contradictions and hypocrisies in how the progressives behave. They don't care!
They aren't trying to apply universal standards of justice. They believe that "universal
standards of justice" is a cant phrase to disguise white heterosexist patriarchal supremacy.
They believe that justice is achieving power for their group, and therefore disempowering other
groups. This is why it's not racist, in their view, to favor non-whites over whites in the
distribution of power. This is why they don't consider it unfair to discriminate against men,
heterosexuals, and other out-groups.
They will use things like "dialogue" as a tactic to serve the long-term strategy of
acquiring total power. Resisting them on liberal grounds is like bringing a knife to a gun
fight. The neoreactionaries have seen this clearly, while conservatives like me, who can't
quite let go of old-fashioned liberalism, have resisted it.
I have resisted it because I really would like to live in a world where we can negotiate our
differences while allowing individuals and groups maximum autonomy in the private sphere. I
want to be left alone, and want to leave others alone. This, I fear, is a pipe dream. Absent a
shared cultural ethos, I can't see how this is possible. I hate to say it -- seriously, I do --
but I think that today's conservatives (including me) are going to end up as neoreactionaries,
just as today's old-school liberals are going to end up as progressives, because the forces
pulling us to these extremes are stronger than any centrism.
For example, check this out:
I'm running into irreligious people who think that a religious person violating their
deeply held principles is just a matter of choice, that they don't truly have any genuine
beliefs.
We can't even converse any more b/c we're not speaking the same language.
This is our country -- and this is the danger we religious people are facing, and are going
to face much more intensely. Many non-religious people simply cannot understand why we see the
world the way we do, and assume that it can only be out of irrationality and bigotry.
I invite you to read
this blog post from three years ago, based on my interview with "Prof. Kingsfield", a
closeted Christian teaching at an elite law school. This excerpt:
"Alasdair Macintyre is right," he said. "It's like a nuclear bomb went off, but in slow
motion." What he meant by this is that our culture has lost the ability to reason together,
because too many of us want and believe radically incompatible things.
But only one side has the power. When I asked Kingsfield what most people outside elite
legal and academic circles don't understand about the way elites think, he said "there's this
radical incomprehension of religion."
"They think religion is all about being happy-clappy and nice, or should be, so they don't
see any legitimate grounds for the clash," he said. "They make so many errors, but they don't
want to listen."
To elites in his circles, Kingsfield continued, "at best religion is something consenting
adult should do behind closed doors. They don't really understand that there's a link between
Sister Helen Prejean's faith and the work she does on the death penalty. There's a lot of
looking down on flyover country, one middle America.
"The sad thing," he said, "is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge
as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don't hold. It's all about power.
They've got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is
not anchored in anything. They've got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in
education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically
means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did
before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the
answers, and believe that they are good."
This is a small part of a larger struggle.
Many on the left deny that cultural Marxism exists, but you have in The New York
Times a column by a Marxist professor saying that yes it does, and it's a good thing, too.
His final line:
On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of
society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is
finally realized.
Marx didn't come from nowhere. The world of 1848 (when the Communist Manifesto appeared) is
a lot like our own world; re-read the section above from that document and see how familiar it
sounds. He was more or less right in his diagnosis of the revolutionary nature of capitalism,
but his materialism and its relationship to human nature was catastrophically wrong. His
thought may have resulted in mass murder, but it is clearly not dead; it is simply turned
against culture, not the means of production.
Therefore, I'll end here with this excerpt from Carlo Lancellotti's recent
Commonweal essay about Marx, culture, and Catholicism. Excerpt:
Contra the "Catholic Left," which tended to regard Marx's atheism as accidental, and tried
to rescue his socio-political analysis from his religious views, Del Noce concluded that what
Marx proposed was not just a new theory of history or a new program of political economy, but
a new anthropology , one completely different from the Christian tradition. (Louis
Dupré had made a similar argument in the pages of Commonweal ; see "Marx and Religion: An
Impossible Marriage," April 26, 1968.) Marx viewed humans as "social beings" entirely
determined by historical and material circumstances rather than by their relationship with
God. He viewed human reason as purely instrumental -- a tool of production and social
organization rather than the capacity to contemplate the truth and participate in the divine
wisdom. Finally, Marx viewed liberation as the fruit of political action, not as a personal
process of conversion aided by grace. Marxist politics was not guided by fixed and absolute
ethical principles, because ethics, along with philosophy, was absorbed into politics. Del
Noce concluded that there was no way to rescue Marx's politics from his atheism, which had as
much to do with his view of man as with his view of God.
Nonetheless, after World War II Marxism experienced a resurgence in Western Europe, not
only among intellectuals and politicians but also in mainstream culture. But Del Noce noticed
that at the same time society was moving in a very different direction from what Marx had
predicted: capitalism kept expanding, people were eagerly embracing consumerism, and the
prospect of a Communist revolution seemed more and more remote. To Del Noce, this
simultaneous success and defeat of Marxism pointed to a deep contradiction. On the
one hand, Marx had taught historical materialism, the doctrine that metaphysical and ethical
ideas are just ideological covers for economic and political interests. On the other hand, he
had prophesied that the expansion of capitalism would inevitably lead to revolution, followed
by the "new man," the "classless society," the "reign of freedom." But what if the revolution
did not arrive, if the "new man" never materialized?
In that case, Del Noce realized, Marxist historical materialism would degenerate into a
form of radical relativism -- into the idea that philosophical and moral concepts are just
reflections of historical and economic circumstances and have no permanent validity. This
would have to include the concept of injustice, without which a critique of capitalism would
be hard, if not impossible, to uphold. A post-Marxist culture -- one that kept Marx's radical
materialism and denial of religious transcendence, while dispensing with his confident
predictions about the self-destruction of capitalism -- would naturally tend to be
radically bourgeois. By that, Del Noce meant a society that views "everything as an
object of trade" and "as an instrument" to be used in the pursuit of individualized
"well-being." Such bourgeois society would be highly individualistic, because it could not
recognize any cultural or religious "common good." In the Communist Manifesto, Marx
and Engels described the power of the bourgeois worldview to dissolve all cultural and
religious allegiances into a universal market. Now, ironically, Marxist ideas (which Del Noce
viewed as a much larger and more influential phenomenon than political Marxism in a strict
sense) had helped bring that process to completion. At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce
looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be "a society
that accepts all of Marxism's negations against contemplative thought, religion, and
metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of
production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of
Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In
this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit
triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary
thought."
If Del Noce is correct, we may not have to worry about the cultural Marxists of our time
taking total power, as consumer capitalism and its comforts will compromise their revolutionary
spirit. When and if university presidents start kicking these bumptious brats out of college,
the revolution will sputter like Occupy Wall Street did. But before it's all over, they may end
up destroying the institutions and ways of life that make life stable and meaningful. Then
again, unrestrained capitalism has done the same thing. The problem with Marxism is that it
burns the boats so that nobody can return, and calls the resulting fire enlightenment.
The warning is twofold: First, that cultural Marxism is a real thing willing and capable of
doing real damage, and that you cannot negotiate with these people; and second, that unless
capitalists figure out how to ameliorate the excesses of market and technological change on
society, they are tempting fate, just as their 19th and early 20th century forebears did.
UPDATE: Reader Dave:
The bigger problem with the NYT piece that you either missed or didn't feel added to your
thesis is the irony that Marx's critiques are seen as a good and carrying that forward
cultural Marxist critiques are good, unless you are critiquing those critiques. You aren't
allowed to critique arguments from BLM or La Raza or LGBTQXYZ groups or etc because taking a
critical eye to those groups is just hateful bigoted nonsense. Never mind that those groups'
manifestos generally don't hold up to scrutiny, just accept it as a means to an end (even if
that end isn't really where we should like to be). In a world where there is no objective
truth and all individuals' "truths" are valid there is no basis culture or society. But you
can't bring that up, lest you be labeled an insensitive bigot who should be burned at the
stake. My guess is if Marx were revived today he would be ashamed more of the intellectual
rot his philosophy has spawned than he would over the millions of innocents dead.
Significantly left of center, "hard left", may only describe 20-25% of the U.S.
population, but in certain geographic areas, they control virtually all of the political
levers of government. Seattle for instance.
Seattle. Right. The domain of corporate liberalism on steroids. Hard left. Uh-huh. I won't
ask what you've been smoking, because I think its congenital.
should read "Goldman bankers aren't interested in funding class consciousness"
Much better and more accurate than removing "not" from the original. Thank you.
Marx was a smart guy, but too smart. It was really really weird the older I got and the more
I found out about recurring class struggles and sometimes riots and even revolutions, again
and again, in ancient Greece and Rome. There's so much documentation, over centuries, that it
seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing significantly new about Marxism at all, it's
just a slightly more complex manifestation of a permanent phenomenon: inequality. Can
anything be done about it? Nothing, you just have to idealize "equality" and KNOW inequality.
"... The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. ..."
The Trump administration is struggling to assemble a coalition of Arab military forces to
replace U.S. troops battling Islamic State militants in eastern Syria, a roadblock that could
indefinitely delay President Trump's goal of pulling American forces out of the country, U.S.
officials said.
Allies in the region are deeply skeptical about sending their troops -- and many are even
reluctant to contribute funds -- to help stabilize cities and towns liberated from Islamic
State, according to senior U.S. officials, if the United States intends to pull out, as Trump
has threatened.
It comes as no surprise that these governments have no interest in taking Trump up on this
offer. Each of them has other more pressing concerns than policing parts of Syria, some have no
interest in opposing the Syrian government, all of them are ill-equipped for the task at hand,
and it would be a terrible mistake to invite these governments to occupy Syrian territory in
any case. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has to keep its forces in Syria, but it should remind
us how useless our clients are to the U.S.
The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any
occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force
or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not
worth the costs and risks that go along with it. The U.S. has no business fighting in
Syria, and it has no authority to keep its forces there, so a complete withdrawal from Syria is
the only appropriate and legal course of action open to the U.S.
"... However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal. ..."
"... Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage. ..."
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
Fat chance. China will continue with its BRI and AIIB initiatives. It will continue to
lash-up with Russia and its EAEU to create a pan-Eurasian economic architecture in which the
U.S. is largely economically irrelevant. Especially when hard asset pricing is decoupled from
the dollar.
And China now has a huge supply of highly trained (many in the U.S.) scientists and
engineers. Russia and Europe also have highly skilled technologists making Eurasia
self-sufficient in both natural resources and technology development.
The U.S. will be eventually shut out. Because dealing with the Global Cop Gorilla in any
context is more trouble than it's worth.
However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an
unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that
generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal.
Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the
planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes
EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated
economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other
than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage.
The U.S. driven into the ditch by the Power Elite Parasites and Neocon War-mongers will
get its clocked cleaned in the next 10 years no matter what. North Korea is merely background
noise.
If you ever wanted a condensed example of the kind of blithe solipsism and wish-thinking that
passes for thinking among our "international relations" "scholars", I don't think you could
do much worse than this silly paragraph:
In many respects, nothing should scare China more, as America, and specifically the
Trump administration, has never been fully capable of taking on the challenges presented by
Beijing thanks to Pyongyang and its growing nuclear arsenal. China has taken full advantage
of Washington's wandering eye, putting itself in position to dominate the South China Sea,
further subjugate Taiwan, and try to develop a stronger position in the East China
Sea.
All you saps who think that China's greater prominence might be a consequence of its
culture, its history, its recent extraordinary economic growth -- wrong! Turns out it all
hangs on North Korea and its mighty Brooklyn-size GDP! And that means .
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
All this, and daffodils will cover the meadows again, once Pyonyang comes around, gets its
mind right. Simple!
It should surprise absolutely nobody that the guy who wrote this inanity is behind "The
National Interest", which daily publishes all kinds of sophistry generally aimed at getting
Americans to wade into the "crisis" du jour . Sooner or later Trump will be a bad
memory, but Kazianis and his ilk will still be there, as firmly embedded in the Beltway veins
as any tick.
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of
aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism,"
invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home
to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are
the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron
seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment
to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its
own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits,
and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.
Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States
from which China is exempt.
As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the
scores of billions we have plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de
Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits,
Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods
and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive
nationalisms that deny our history."
Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration
how the Americans acquired all that land?
General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought
for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.
How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas
from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went
about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive
British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker
indigenous tribes?
Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West
Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive
nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the
"suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.
"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.
Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the
original 50. Is this a problem?
"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism
and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and
tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd
will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a
multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe
means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming
madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they
love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost
all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is
foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy
Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left
will have a lock on the presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of
altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is
extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will
come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a
despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars.
Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.
European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good
thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good
thing.
The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with
white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and
happiness.
While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance,
multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the
past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be
uninvented.
I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West.
The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to
acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at
their home countries.
Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community
gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally,
philosophically, spiritually and creatively.
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a
Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in
Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel
(more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining
in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a
mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:
"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade
deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."
President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and
technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU,
it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting
force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.
The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign
policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to
protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world
stage.
Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether
he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the
American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is
gone.
I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions,
that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly
ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such
thoughts.
Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO
unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try
to balance the scales.
Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My
own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have
lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my
parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not
too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That
shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be
totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights,
language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on
minorities.
That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly
turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread.
You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory
that contains vast farmlands.
Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the
precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed
itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.
The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were
completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals
tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.
No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their
hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?
You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But
one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides
which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local
market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out,
and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and
contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.
Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was
lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and
_conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal,
even among the sainted rubes who raised me.
Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting
society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople,
that's a fact.
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:
I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances,
just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't
mine, though.
If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find
familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very
familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving
to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the
average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know
yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no
college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.
Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them,
actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite
understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own
eyes.
"... But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The 15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional committee. The Christian Science Monitor ..."
Official Washington and those associated with it have misrepresented the facts numerous
times in the service of military actions that might not otherwise have taken place. In the
Middle East, these interventions have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians,
brought chaos to Iraq and Libya, and led to the expulsion of a million Christians from
communities where they have lived since biblical times.
The most famous of these episodes, of course, was the U.S. government's assurance to the
world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which formed the basis for the 2003
U.S. invasion of Iraq. The government also insisted Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, bolstering the
call to war. Of course neither was true.
But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of
Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The
15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional
committee. The Christian Science Monitor
detailed this bizarre episode in 2002.
There were also the lies about the Iraqi army being
poised to invade Saudi Arabia. That was the ostensible reason for the U.S. sending troops
to Kuwait -- to defend Saudi Arabia. Writing in the the Los
Angeles Times in 2003, Independent Institute fellow Victor Marshall pointed out that
neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi
Arabia as probable, and said the administration's Iraqi troop estimates were "grossly
exaggerated." In fact, the administration's claim that it had aerial photographs proving its
assertions was never verified because, as we later learned, the photos never existed. The
Christian
Science Monitor also reported on this in 2002 ahead of the second Iraq war.
America attacked Iraq in 1991, bombing and destroying that nation's irrigation, sanitation,
and electricity plants. (See here regarding Washington's knowledge of and
planning for the horrific mass contamination of Iraqi drinking water.) Then we blockaded
reconstruction supplies for nine years while some half-million children died of disease and
starvation. We blamed it all on Saddam, although we controlled Iraq's money flows through the
UN food-for-oil program. Fortunately, we have a rare admission by Madeleine Albright on 60
Minutes about what was done.
Before that, there was the Kosovo war when America attacked Serbia on the basis of
lies that 100,000 Kosovans had been
massacred by Serbs in suppressing their civil war. This led to massive American bombing,
brutally
destroying much of that nation's civilian infrastructure and factories, including most of
the bridges in the country, and all but one of those over the Danube River. The Americans
imposed peace, then expelled most Serbs out of their former province. Subsequently there was
the mass destruction of hundreds of ancient Christian churches and the creation of a European
enclave now filled with Saudi money that sponsors Wahhabi education, with its rote memorization
of the Koran and its 13th-century hatred of Christians.
More recently there was the British, French, and American attack on Libya in response to
lies that Moammar Gaddafi was planning to massacre civilians in Benghazi. The U.S. destroyed
his armed forces and helped to overthrow him. Widespread looting of his weaponry subsequently
filled black markets in Asia and Africa and contributed to the ability of Boko Haram terrorists to sow chaos in
Nigeria and parts of Northern Africa. Masses of African refugees have been flooding Western
Europe ever since, traveling through Libya. Some of those weapons also made their way into the
hands of the Islamic State, which overran parts of Iraq and Syria.
Most recently we had cable news inundating us with stories of a new poison gas attack in
Syria. The "news" came from rebel sources. TheAmerican Conservative
has published a detailed analysis by former arms inspector Scott Ritter questioning the
evidence, or lack of it, that the Assad regime initiated the attack. The former British
ambassador to Syria also cast doubts on the poison gas attack and its sources from rebel
organizations.
It doesn't make sense that Assad would use poison gas just as Trump was saying that he
wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. It does make sense for the rebels to have staged a
set up to get America to stay and attack Assad. This happened before in the summer of 2014 when
President Obama nearly went to war over similar accusations. Only after asking Congress to vote
on the matter did he decide against the attack because Congress wasn't interested. Some
congressmen's mail was running 100-to-one against bombing. It was a welcome reminder of why
Washington doesn't want actual votes on starting wars: because most Americans don't want more
Washington wars.
After all the hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad killed by America and the human
misery caused because of clever U.S. and foreign manipulations, one would think we might pause
before attacking Syria and running the risk of killing Russians who are advising the Syrians.
That could ignite an entirely new kind of war with a nuclear-armed Russia -- all without
congressional approval.
Obama, whose policies were predicated on the view that Assad must go, seemed to think
Syrians would live happily after in some magically sprouting democracy. To believe this one
would have to ignore the prior examples of Iraq and Libya. Nor do these war party advocates
seem in the least concerned about the 10 percent of Syria's population who are Christians, many
of whom would surely by massacred after any overthrow of Assad.
Further, the so-called Free Syrian
Army is a hodgepodge of rebel groups that include many Islamist radicals. With funding from
fundamentalist Saudis and Turkey, they took over from more liberal forces early on. It's worth
noting also that Turkey provided the black market for ISIS to sell Syria's captured oil.
Going back a hundred years there were the clever British lies that helped coax America into
joining the Allies in World War I. England controlled the trans-Atlantic cables and most of our
"news" about the war. That intervention resulted in the Treaty of Versailles instead of a
compromise peace between Germany and England/France that would have prevented the wreckage of
Europe out of which came the rise of communism and Nazism.
For an analysis of the risks of accidental nuclear war, see my 2017 January
Publisher's Report , in which I once wrote about how Osama bin Laden's ultimate aim was to
get Russia and America to destroy each other. It still could happen, triggered by false
atrocity stories, cable TV's 24-hour hyping of any and every threat, and Washington's
propensity to believe lies -- and sometimes perpetrate them -- to promote wars.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
Lies can be fun, especially the ones I tell myself, and they're also a lot of fun to
discover, just like your lies. The worst bummer, however, is that the lies we tell each other
very quickly do get tiresome and repetitive, if not downright frustrating:
"Oh My God, It's Still The Same Lies. That Makes It Worse."
Apparently–and this is tragic–it looks like we're just too selfish to come up
with new ones: Say what, you want me to lie the country into war in some fascinating novel
way, just for your entertainment? I don't think so. It's easier to stick to the routine, and
I'm lazy, so I'll just do as you do, I'll keep telling you the same old lies, which explains
why you are bored as well–meanwhile, I spend my quality time investigating all the ways
I hide things from myself.
Wars are little more than armed robberies on an industrial scale.
Wars are begun, to take what belongs to someone else.
The sheer magnitude of a crime transforms it into heroic achievement – at least, in
historical perspective, for the winners, as long as they retain power. In the long run, the
consequences are malignantly pernicious.
The United States isn't being manipulated into war.
The only manipulation is of American public opinion- fortunately for the War Party,i.e. the
US government, there's enough blind nationalism & tribal loyalty on both sides of the
political divide for their propaganda to (usually) succeed.
Look at any public figure. Their salary is less than $190K. BUT, They are worth $10 Million
or more. That is why we go to war. Foreign influence (Saudi and Israel) as well as the
Military Industrial Complex. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, )Our Leaders are paid off!
Now that the war profiteering classes and their retainee camp followers are running into the
problem that more and more citizens are prepared to doubt, if not outright dismiss – if
just on principle – their claims and anonymous trickyleaks regarding "secret evidence"
and elusive "proof", the Democratic Party has become an eager handmaiden to the neolibcon con
of projecting all that justified and overdue doubt and dissent – distrust to
unaccountable power – and the citizens' frustration with their corrupt representative
and dysfunctional institutions – on, you know it Russia!
So now that we stop accepting government claims by default – something no reasonable
citizen should ever do, on principle – we are denounced as "gullible" –
projection at its best – and as "useful idiots" of some Kremlin mirage that happens to
be a mirror image of our own government's betrayals at its worst. Once dissent has been
"discredited" by claiming it could not possible have any other cause except uninformed and
misled voters – see the published responses to Sanders and Trump supporters – and
could, of course, not have any merit, the next step is to make sure that our "democracy" is
safeguarded even more against "populists" – those that speak truth to power, not those
that lie blatantly to claim power for themselves – and the unruly mob in the streets
that questions the establishment, the wholly owned elites, and the oligarchic owners of our
very own autocratic franchise.
That is the progression – from being lied into war, whether we believe the BS or
not, to being denounced as useful idiots or traitors if we dare to doubt the BS we are being
fed, to being disenfranchised under the pretext of protecting the franchise.
The biggest obstacle to establishing a precedents under international law to obtain UN
General Assembly consensus for intervention in the inner affairs of a nation- in response
crimes committed by the government of that nation – is the US, because the US has acted
as a rogue nation for decades, and has eroded the international order to the point where the
"allied" governments of Germany and other EU states think nothing of "supporting" those acts
of aggression, and post-colonial wannabe powers like the UK and France have joined the US
"coalition of the willing". That "international order" will fall unless the US finally leads
by example and commits itself to uphold the UN Charter – and its own Constitution
– in letter and spirit. Until then, there is nothing we can do to help those that
suffer under the yoke of what are, under our current international order, legitimate
governments of sovereign nation.
The US cannot assert and pursue primacy and unipolar super-sovereignty over every other
nation on this planet and at the same time claim to uphold the principles of sovereign
states, and nobody will be able to redefine or constrain the rule of sovereign states within
the existing international order as long as what little order we have claim to is being set
aside and ignored wholesale by any nation that can get away with it, with the US and the
so-called "West" in the lead.
We cannot lie our way to life, liberty and justice, not for ourselves, and certainly not
on behalf of others, especially if we do not hesitate at all to make those we claim to help
and "protect" pay the ultimate price for our acts of aggression. These are indeed the most
dishonest and offensive words in the English language: "We are from the US government, and we
are here to help." The "responsibility to protect" is nothing but another attempt to address
the necessity to pretend.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war.
" most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
Actually, most Americans don't care, really. Oh, you ask one if he likes war, and he will
say, "No". But ask him if Uncle Joe should lose his job at Boeing, and what will he say?
Wars are, of course, a jobs program on a massive scale. And if some dark-skinned civilians
die, Americans aren't concerned.
My own theory of hawkishness is that voters are much more comfortable with putting
national defense in the hands of someone far more hawkish then themselves, than in the hands
of someone slightly less hawkish.
See, for example, how people who theoretically wan lower taxes, smaller government, and a
balanced budget, keep electing GOP leadership that always attacks their Democratic opponents
on gutting defense spending (even when defense spending has been going up), and always
equates larger DOD budgets with more "security" for Americans.
Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other parts
of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more wars.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war."
I've found my elderly mother is very enthusiastic about our overseas wars. I believe it is
because she somehow projects America's ability to bully the rest of the world onto herself.
She is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can
tailgate people and they will get out of her way.
" my elderly mother is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how
she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way."
What a great country! Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow
reflexes trying to navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?
"Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow reflexes trying to
navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?"
I can say from experience and the related stories of others, one very recent and sad
--
cyclists don't stand a chance.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other
parts of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more
wars."
World gone wrong when we agree -- things must be really be SNAFU.
Echoing Professor Nerd & balconesfault & Kent. It's certainly true that Lockheed
Martin, the Israel lobby, our Saudi "friends", et al have a ton of influence, and use
it for ends that I'd call malign. But for at least the last 20 years we've been living in a
world in which it's effortless to find information contrary to the latest war marketing PR
campaign. When Bush the Lesser was getting ready for his war, did any of his
hysterical claims last even a week before it was discredited? But off to war we went.
It'd be nice if we could blame all of our lousy decisions on those wily Zionists and Arabs
and Russians, but the causes seem to lie a little closer to home .
"... The common good "cannot be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't this something we can learn from in the West today? ..."
"... Russia's "[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ..."
"... Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity. ..."
"... The City of Man ..."
"... Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United States. ..."
"... The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr. Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. ..."
"... Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on political-philosophical issues. ..."
A
staunchly traditional society grapples with modernity's disruptions, seeking conservatisms far
beyond Putinism.
It's a truism that America is a liberal place. Americans emphasize the importance of the
individual and tend to reject notions of hierarchy and authority. Russia by contrast is known
to be a more conservative society, one where the interests of the group come ahead of those of
the individual; and where, for centuries, respect for hierarchy and authority has usually been
the norm.
All the same, the "news" of Russia's return to conservatism has hit many observers in the
West like the proverbial ton of bricks. The typical response has been to
blame the Russian president for steering Russia away from the liberal path, the path of
becoming a "
normal country" with "Western values."
Others have sought to understand Russian political culture on its own terms. A recent
analysis ("The New Eurasians," Times Literary Supplement , May 13, 2015) stands out
from the crowd by making a serious effort to read present-day Russian conservatism in its
historical context. Lesley Chamberlain dismisses the glib reduction of Russia to its
present-day leader. Russia, she writes, is not ruled by Vladimir Putin: to the contrary, "the
power that rules Russia is tradition." Far from it being the case that a benighted Russian
public is being led to conservatism artificially by its government, the reverse is the case:
the vast majority of Russians, perhaps eighty percent "are intensely conservative."
Like most in the commentariat, Chamberlain finds cause for alarm in Russia's return to type.
She worries about a Russia seeking to create "an alternative version of the contemporary
Christian, or post-Christian, world, contiguous with but distinct from the West."
Chamberlain reduces today's incarnation of Russian conservatism to the more or less vague
bundle of geographic and neo-imperial notions that goes by the name Eurasianism, often linked
with the name of Alexander Dugin.
To be sure, anti-Western Eurasianism is part of contemporary Russian conservatism.
But it is only one part. Excessive focus on this angle has created the impression that
Dugin-esque Eurasianism is the only game in town when it comes to Russian conservatism. It
isn't. It's not even the only version of what might be called the 'Russian national greatness'
school of conservatism.
If we wish to understand Russia in something like its true complexity, we have to take the
trouble to listen to it, to let it speak in its own voice instead of constantly projecting onto
it all our own worst fears. Precisely because Eurasianism has already hogged all the attention,
I won't deal with it here.
... ... ...
Liberal Conservatism
Some participants straddled several categories of conservatism at once. In other cases, for
example that of the above-mentioned Makarenko, their thought fit neatly within a single
category -- in his case, that of liberal conservatism.
For Makarenko, modern Russian political practice has far too utilitarian an attitude toward
rule of law and democracy. If it can be demonstrated that the latter support state sovereignty,
then all is well and good; but whenever either are perceived as a threat to the state -- then
democracy and rule of law are always the ones that have to suffer. From his perspective, Russia
would do better to learn from Burke, who looked not so much to the sovereignty of the
state as to the sovereignty of the parliament .
Matveichev, no doubt the most eclectic thinker in the group, on certain subjects occupied
the liberal end of the spectrum. For example, in an essay on corruption and the state, he
approvingly cites the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto to make the point that rule
of law -- as it is practiced, nota bene , in the United States -- is the sine qua
non of economic prosperity. What I found fascinating about Matveichev's position is that
he then takes his argument in a Hegelian and Platonic direction.
It is the state -- not the market on its own -- that provides these all important
forms , and bad as the corruption of state institutions may be, a bad form is
nonetheless better than no form at all -- including for business. The common good "cannot
be reduced to the goods of individual private parties, and cannot be deduced from them. Just as
the sum of the parts does not make up the whole, in the same way the sum of private interests
may sometimes work even against itself it is the state that represents the common good." Isn't
this something we can learn from in the West today?
Left Conservatism
The "left conservatives" at the conference -- represented most prominently by Dr. Alexander
Schipkov, an expert on Church-state relations -- are critical of liberal capitalism
and indeed are also critical of the current Russian state to the extent that its "conservatism"
is reducible merely to "family values" without including the all-important component of
economic fairness. His views are close to that of Catholic Distributists as well as to those of
"radical orthodox" theologians like William Cavanaugh and John Milbank.
According to Schipkov, Russians of various backgrounds (left and right, secular and
religious, red and white) need to forge a common ethic. But in truth, Russia already
has such an ethic, one that unifies all the disparate phases in its often tragic and
contradictory history. Consciously playing off of Weber, Schipkov refers to Russia's
"[Christian] Orthodox spirit and the ethic of solidarity ." In a fascinating essay on
this same subject, Schipkov makes clear that his concept of solidarity owes much to the
writings of the early 20th century German philosopher Max Scheler, who likewise had such a big
impact on the thought of Pope John Paul II.
Though the Russian Church continues to play a defining role in the ethical formation of the
nation -- no other pre-1917 institution, after all, still exists -- over time it will be
replaced by other institutions, according to Schipkov. Like the Catholic Church, the
Russian Orthodox Church has recently forged its own Social Concept of the ROC, which fleshes
out this call for fairness as an aspect of human dignity.
Creative Conservatism
Because it tends to evoke the disastrous social and economic effects of "liberalisation"
during the 1990s, the term "liberal" has become something of a swear word in today's Russia.
But what, exactly, does this much reviled "liberalism" consist in? In my own presentation
(English translation forthcoming at SolidarityHall.org ) I suggested that Russians need to define
liberalism -- and conservatism -- more carefully, while distinguishing both from their
ideological perversions.
To his credit, Oleg Matveichev has taken the trouble to craft a precise definition of the
liberal doctrine of human nature in terms worthy of a Pierre Manent ( The City of Man
). According to Matveichev, liberalism reconceives the very essence of man as freedom,
self-sufficiency, and self-definition. Seen through this liberal prism, the goal of our
existence becomes self-emancipation from the chains of the past and the dead weight of
tradition.
Having redefined the meaning of history, Matveichev continues, the "liberals" then set about
condemning those who would thwart its "progress," dismissing them as "conservatives" and
"reactionaries." Is it not time, Matveichev asks, to throw off the chains of this label
invented for us by our adversaries? Why define ourselves as mere "conservatives"? Why not
creatively reimagine an alternative 'meaning of history" ourselves?
Can conservatism be "creative?" And if so, how? Mikhail Remizov, president of the National
Strategy Institute, answered, in effect, "how can it be anything else?" Critics on the left
sometimes attack conservatism by saying, that conservatives do not preserve tradition, they
invent it. Remizov dismisses the implied insult, because it demonstrates a misunderstanding of
how traditions work: (re)invention " is the normal, creative approach to tradition." Remizov
agrees with Hans-Georg Gadamer that sharply contrasting tradition and modernity is a silly and
flat-footed way of looking at tradition, because the latter is always in any case a complex
creative task of making adjustments and dialectical zig-zags. Such an understanding of culture
and tradition as creativity fits, of course, quite nicely with the philosophy of
Nicholas Berdyaev. It is hard to think of another thinker for whom creativity plays a more
central role.
Alexei Kozyrev, associate dean of the philosophy department at Moscow State University,
illustrated the same creative conservative principle when he spoke of the Russian Orthodox
Church's Social Concept. The task of modern man, according to that document, is to find
creative ways to retrieve the thought of the Church Fathers, for example that of Gregory of
Nyssa, who counseled demonstrating our human dignity "not by domination of the natural world
but by caring for and preserving it." The Social Concept likewise calls for defending the
dignity of the unborn embryo and of the mentally ill. Here, in an unexpected twist, the Western
environmental movement meets the pro-Life movement, challenging perhaps our own ideological
boundaries.
... ...
Dialogue with Russia?
Lesley Chamberlain claimed that Russia is not a puzzle. In fact that is precisely what it
is. As should be clear even from the above very partial survey, Russian conservatism, like
Russia itself, embraces a contradictory collection of flaws and virtues. Both the flaws and the
virtues are large.
Among Russia's virtues, it must be emphasized, is a far greater freedom of speech than
it is typically given credit for. Russian participants in the Kaliningrad conference
demonstrated a boldness of imagination, a variety and depth of thought on alternate futures for
their country that is by no means always evident in political speech even in the United
States.
For Western liberals, it is tempting to present Russian conservatism as always intrinsically
dangerous. But I believe the loss is ours. Russian conservatism -- or at any rate important
elements of it -- contains something potentially valuable to the West as it seeks to forge a
strategy for dealing with the growing disorder in the world. What justifies engagement with
Russia is before all else its ability to contribute to solving the problem that all of us face:
how to devise a softer version of western modernity, one which allows for the preservation of
tradition while simultaneously retaining what is most valuable in the liberal
tradition.
The author would like to thank Dr. Adrian Walker, Matthew Cooper and especially Dr.
Matthew Dal Santo for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft.
Paul Grenier is an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues.
The presumption amongst Russian conservatives is not that Russia is perfect as it is but
that Russia's foundational values are good. This is something they have in common with
American conservatives, British Conservatives like Peter Hitchens, and probably most
conservatives in most societies. They would also lament their social ills.
I am not going to accuse you of not having read the article, but that comment of yours
could easily have been made by someone who simply read the title and jumped to the comments
section.
The author's point on free speech is an important one – there is a lot of very deep and
open discussion in Russia at the moment about the country's direction (including even
television debates with ten times the intellectual content of what we find in the States).
Putinism is not a clear ideological system, and for the most part there is no official
orthodoxy being pressed on scholars or the public, many currents exist. Most of the major
viable currents, as this article suggests, are variants of conservatism; Western-style
liberal democracy has (at the moment) lost nearly all it's appeal to the intelligentsia and
the average person alike.
Re: Jon F's comment – unfortunately, in my view he is right. We shouldn't believe
that Russia is a place of thriving family values simply because they say it more often and
louder. Statistics are not the best way to see this – I personally believe (from
experience in the capital and the provinces) that if Russians divorce less, they cheat more.
If they have fewer abortions, they have more children born into undesirable childhoods.
Russian conservatism does have its virtues and the country must to admire, but respect for
women and children are far from a given.
The tendency to see Russia in black/white only, with a pre-imposed bias is no different than
the tendency to see the US (and sometimes the west) and its values in similar manichean
perspectives. Adding depth and colour to the other takes work, and especially the willingness
to empathise, even for a little while, in order to gain more understanding, before employing
a critical eye. And from this perspective I think the article does a good job.
W. Burns: I don't recall that specific issue raised at the conference, but the Revolution and
subsequent experience is much debated, including in other writings by the participants, e.g.
by Shchipkov (his preferred spelling btw, not my Schipkov), whose take is much like that of
Berdyaev: the communist experience is in partial continuity with aspects of Russia's
tradition, e.g. of economic 'fairness' (equalizing plots on the peasant commune, etc.) and
privileging the group over the individual. I started with the analysis by L. Chamberlain in
part because her wide lens-perspective helps make sense of that experience.
David Naas and Cornel Lencar: I wish there were more who shared your perspective. Thanks.
Regarding Russian values vs. practice, aspirations vs. real-world problems. Who among us is
without sin? Is U.S. practice so pristine that we should disdain talking to the Russian side?
That is the material point.
Since the conference I have continued reading the work of these (and other conference)
attendees meant for a Russian audience. They are very, very far from smug about their
internal problems; quite the contrary.
Dave P.: As far as I know, the conference Proceedings so far are only in Russian, but there
are pretty detailed English-language abstracts. Try contacting ISEPR (their site, ISEPR.ru,
also has an English-language version).
Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme here, and to Peterson it is not
necessarily even a primary goal.
His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers don't get it.
Notable quotes:
"... Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering) ..."
"... You will suffer. Accept that, and shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude. ..."
His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers
don't get it.
"Aphorisms," wrote James Geary, "are like particle accelerators for the
mind." When particles collide inside an accelerator, new ones are formed as the energy of the
crash is converted into matter. Inside an aphorism, it is minds that collide, and what spins
out is that most slippery of things, wisdom.
... ... ...
These reviewers have done a disservice to their readers. In large measure, they have failed
to engage with a work that is complex, challenging, and novel. Peterson is sketching out a
draft for how we can survive, look in the mirror, and deal with psychological pain.
To understand his message, the first task is not to be distracted by the title or genre, and
look for the metaphorical glue that binds it all together. 12 Rules sets out an
interesting and complex model for humanity, and it really has nothing to do with petting a cat
or taking your tablets or being kind to lobsters. It is about strength, courage,
responsibility, and suffering, but it is deep and difficult, and it is not easy to pigeonhole.
In a sense, 12 Rules contains a number of hidden structures and hidden processes, and
confusingly, these are not always made explicit in the text.
The first of these is Deep Time.
We are biological creatures, evolved beings who can only be truly understood through a model
that encapsulates the notion of geological time. The concept of Deep Time is very recent: just
a few generations ago science thought that the earth was a few thousand years old. The
realization that the planet has been around for billions of years and that life itself not much
younger has brought about a shift in the story of ourselves and our place in the world. We are
the products of processes that are old, old, old. We stretch back across unfathomable reaches,
incomprehensible spans, but we carry that history within us.
... ... ..
Unlike almost every modern book in the self-help genre, happiness is a not a major theme
here, and to Peterson it is not necessarily even a primary goal. Like Freud, Peterson sees life
as suffering. Pain is its one incontrovertible fact (he remarks at one point that it is a
miracle that anything in the world gets done at all: such is the ubiquity of human suffering). 12 Rules is not about the pursuit of pleasure, and indeed parts of his message are
pure Stoicism. Resistance to life's depredations is futile. You will suffer. Accept that, and
shift your focus to the one thing that is within your control: your attitude.
...
His much-derided directive to "tidy your room" makes sense at every level. Indeed, if your room
is too big, start with "tidy your desk," and then move forward. Find meaning in the tiniest
acts of kindness, and push on from there. Concede the transience of pleasure and the
inevitability of death. This isn't happiness, but it is a step closer to the Good Life, and
contra the reviewers, readers are responding. Active, purposeful "Being in the World" is the
dominant theme, and much of the book is taken up with exploring the whys and wherefores of
this. Courage and strength and kindness, yes, to be sure, but importantly, courage "in spite
of" and kindness "in spite of."
Following Carl Rogers, meaning is to be found in active
engagement in a wondrous and hazardous world, and here there is no shirking the "hazardous." It
seems to me that Peterson is calling for a return to ataraxia , that imperturbability
and equanimity that has been out of fashion amongst the intelligentsia (at least in the West)
for a century or more.
The underlying political philosophy is conservative, without question. As Christian Gonzalez
identified in TheAmerican Conservative , Peterson's closest contemporary
equivalent is Roger Scruton. "We have learned to live together and organize our complex
societies slowly and incrementally, over vast stretches of time," he writes, "and we do not
understand with sufficient exactitude why what we are doing works."
Peterson on the American
culture wars sounds like Scruton on the English Common Law: we are "from the soil," we need
time, it is senseless to break what we barely understand. Each person's private trouble cannot
be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous. Those
left-leaning critics who see "just another reactionary" have failed to understand the
complexity. What permeates this project is an implicit biopsychosocial model of the
human condition (Peterson spares the reader that dread term but it is the only description I
know for his integrative model).
... ... ...
Tim Rogers is a consultant psychiatrist in Edinburgh. He's written for Encounter
magazine, and has published in both Quillette and Areo .
Trump became a despicable warmonger. That true. And undisputable after the recent attack on
Syria ("operation Stormy Daniels"). But was it War Party that coerced him or were other processes
involved?
The main weakness of Buchanan hypothecs is that it is unclear wether Trump was coerced by War
Party, or he was "Republican Obama" from the very beginning performing classic "bait and switch"
operation on gullible electorate (as in "change we can believe in") . The second hypothesis is
now strong then the fist and supported by more fact. just look at the "troika" of
Haley-Bolton-Pompeo -- all three were voluntarily selected by the President and all three are
rabid neocons. So it looks liek no or little coercion from the War Party was necessary.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will." ..."
"... Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. ..."
"... We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs. ..."
"... The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. ..."
"... As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post ..."
April
16, 2018, 9:55 PM "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should
withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."
Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was
necessary to stay for the long term."
Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian Civil War "for the long term"?
If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S.
troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure
chemical weapons will not again be used by Bashar al-Assad and maintain the ability to watch
Iran.
Translation: whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper
in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars
and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."
The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign
policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war
plans:
The better U.S. strategy is to turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia
and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an
end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based
enclaves.
Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the
pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.
But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and
the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies
go all out to win and reunite the nation.
Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of
war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb
mercilessly?
The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used,
but they are not plunging into Syria.
Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must
proceed as it will."
The Journal 's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could
up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even
Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within
Iran should not be off limits."
And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force, or political
leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has
not attacked us?
Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?
Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want
any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into
becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man,
opposed his election.
We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is
a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of
nonexistent WMDs.
The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal
strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army,
they will yield to our demands.
But where is the evidence for this?
What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to
win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared
for that?
As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce
lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post on Sunday dismissed this as
"fatalistic" and "misguided." We have a vital interest, says the Post , in preventing
Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.
Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor." The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah
our CIA installed in 1953. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and
overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite
majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up
and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.
How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?
How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni
over Shiite?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
"... "This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. ..."
"... Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon. ..."
In fact, just how "ugly" the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public
debate. During his March visit, Scaparrotti appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee
to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia
and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that
it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn't disagree, while
soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he's had with Votel and Centcom. "Where do
we want to be in a year, two years and five years?" he asked. "With a close NATO ally like
Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that's the
long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what
we're doing today with respect to NATO." The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a
willing translator: "What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the
U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling."
But convincing James Mattis of that is proving difficult, in part because Scaparrotti is
outgunned. Every defense secretary surrounds himself with people he can count on and who he
listens to. But for Mattis almost all of them have had experience in the Middle East -- and at
Centcom. There's Mattis himself (a former Centcom commander), JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford (who
served with Mattis in Iraq), Joint Staff Director Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. (a
Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), retired Rear Admiral Kevin M. Sweeney (the
former Centcom executive officer), Rear Admiral Craig S. Faller (a Mattis advisor, and a Navy
commander during both the Afghan and Iraq wars), and current Centcom commander General Joseph
Votel -- the former commander of the U.S. Special Operation Command ("a trigger puller," as he
was described to me by a currently serving officer). Votel is the most outspoken YPG supporter
of any of them, and because he's the combatant commander, his support carries weight.
"This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of
these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works.
The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the
Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him,
well, you know, it's all Centcom. So Scaparrotti is worried, and he ought to be. We don't
want to be sitting around 30 years from now reading historical pieces with titles like 'Who
Lost Turkey?'"
Even someone as careful in his public utterances as Admiral James Stavridis, who once held
Scaparrotti's command and is now the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is
raising concerns. While he waves off the "who lost Turkey" formulation as "a trope that is
moving around the Internet," he told me in an email exchange that "it would be a mistake of
epic proportions to allow Turkey to drift out of the transatlantic orbit" -- a repeat of the
warning issued by Scaparrotti to Mattis in March. But like Scaparrotti, Staviridis is
slow-rolling his disagreement. "This is a distinction without a difference," the senior officer
and NATO partisan with whom we spoke says. "By drifting out of NATO, Stavridis means leaving.
He's as worried as anyone else."
Concerns over Turkey are probably a surprise in the White House, given its almost daily
crisis over the looming Russia-gate investigation, but they shouldn't be. The president has had
extended telephone exchanges with Turkish President Tayyip Erodogan twice in the last three
weeks. While the White House has refused to give details of these conversations, the Turkish
official with whom we spoke told TAC that in both conversations (on March 23 and again
on April 11), Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and
"transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note
that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S.
troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a
suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon.
On April 3, the same day Trump issued his let's-get-out statement, Joseph Votel and Brett
McGurk appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace, arguing that the U.S. needed to stay in. "The
hard part, I think, is in front of us," Votel said, "and that is stabilizing these areas,
consolidating our gains, getting back to their homes. There is a military role in this," he
went on to say. "Certainly in the stabilization phase."
The Votel appearance was exasperating for those worried about NATO's future, and for those
concerned that the endless conflicts in the region are draining the defense budget of badly
needed funds to rebuild U.S. military readiness. For them, a group that now includes a growing
number of very senior and influential military officers, "stabilization" is not only a codeword
for "nation building," it signals support for a mission that is endangering the future of NATO,
the institution that has guaranteed peace in Europe for three generations.
"It's not worth it," the senior military commander who spoke with TAC concludes. "On
top of everything else, it puts us on the wrong side of the political equation. This whole
thing about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bunch of bullshit. The enemy of my
enemy is now making an enemy of our friend. I don't know who we think we're fooling, but it
sure as hell isn't Turkey. And it isn't the American people either."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American
Conservative, and the author of The
Pentagon's Wars (2017).
"Monica styles"... Trump is fighting fore survival with Tomahawks trying to solve his problem
with junfoism.
Notable quotes:
"... "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place. ..."
"... The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. ..."
"... Daniel Larison is a senior editor at ..."
"... where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the ..."
"... Front Porch Republic, and ..."
"... . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter . ..."
One year since the U.S. illegally launched 59 cruise missiles at Syrian government forces in
response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, the Trump administration is preparing to take
similar military action despite an increased risk of escalation that could lead to the start of
a wider war.
The U.S., France, and Britain have been
preparing to strike the Syrian government over the last several days, and Syria's Russian
patron has threatened the "gravest consequences" in response to an attack. Russia didn't
respond to last year's one-off airstrikes, but Moscow isn't likely to tolerate a larger U.S.
attack carried out with other governments. Syria's government and its allies seem more willing
to
fight back than they were a year ago, and that should give the Trump administration and our
European allies pause. There is a greater risk of great power conflict erupting in Syria than
there has been at any time since the end of the Cold War, and if Russian military personnel are
killed by U.S. or allied strikes there is no telling how quickly things could deteriorate there
and in other parts of the world.
President Trump's public statements have strongly suggested that an attack will be happening
soon, going so far as to
taunt Russia on Twitter that they should "get ready" for the "new" and "smart" missiles
that the U.S. would be using. Some members of Congress have insisted that the president lacks
the legal authority to launch an attack on Syria without their authorization. As Sen. Tim Kaine
(D-Virginia)
put it , "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he
can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are
not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately,
Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the
attack takes place.
The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's
strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no
plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against
foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. There is no provision
in international law that allows a U.S. attack on another government without explicit Security
Council authorization, and we know that this authorization that will never be forthcoming in
this case because of Russia's veto. While the attack is being sold as the enforcement of a norm
against chemical weapons use, it isn't possible to uphold an international norm while violating
the most fundamental rule of international law.
To date, the U.S. and its allies have presented no definitive evidence to support their
claims against the Syrian government. It is entirely plausible that the Syrian government is
guilty of using chlorine or sarin against its enemies and the civilian population, but there
has been no real effort on the part of the U.S. and its allies to prove their accusation before
deciding to act as executioners. Regardless, the U.S. and its allies have no authority to
punish the Syrian government, and in doing so they may do significant harm to international
peace and security.
A U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government could lead to war with Russia or Iran or both at
once, and there is also a danger that it could help set off a war between Israel and Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said earlier this week that Israel would not "allow" an Iranian military presence to be
established in Syria. The prime minister's threat came on the heels of Israeli strikes inside
Syria that reportedly killed seven Iranians serving alongside the Syrian regime's forces. Iran
has threatened retaliation for the attack, and it has the ability through Hizbullah to make
good on that threat if Israel carries out additional strikes. Israel might use a U.S.-led
attack on Iran's allies in Syria as an excuse to strike more Iranian targets, and Iran might
then respond in kind with missile attacks on Israel. Lebanese, Syrian, and Israeli civilians
would all suffer if that happened, and it would make an already chaotic international situation
even worse.
It is a measure of how divorced from U.S. and allied security our Syria policy has become
that our government is seriously preparing to launch another illegal attack on a government
that hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us or our allies. Attacking the Syrian government
won't make the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken the government
just enough to prolong Syria's civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population.
It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for its own sake with no
connection to any discernible interests or strategy. No one stands to gain from such an attack
except for the ideologues that have incessantly demanded deeper U.S. involvement in Syria for
the last six years.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published
in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Front Porch Republic, and
The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on
Twitter .
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?
Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to
influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid
porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her
staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is
something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.
The obvious
purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about
Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to
Mr. Trump
vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and
spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle
Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also
establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny
Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump
that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much
this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other
"wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump
or the campaign.
John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there
was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from
that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it.
These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on
freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he
believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to
pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards
couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it
a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to
do things others can't without breaking the law.
There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the
incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance
of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing.
The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion
inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1
million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this
is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.
Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's
easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be
dangerous.
President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Defense
Secretary Mattis. (DoD) On Sunday, President Trump
announced his intention to make those responsible for an alleged chemical weapons attack on
Douma, including the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies, pay a "big price"
for their continued disregard for international law. The next day U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Nikki Haley declared
that "The United States is determined to see the monster who dropped chemical weapons on
the Syrian people held to account."
President
Trump reinforced his call for action on Monday, noting that the United States would not sit
back in the face of the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria. "It will be met, and it will
be met forcefully," the president said, adding that those responsible for the attack will be
held accountable, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or "all of them together."
Trump noted that a decision to use military force would be made "over the next 24 to 48
hours."
The pronouncements of imminent military action by the United States are not made in a
vacuum. Russia, which has considerable military forces deployed inside Syria, including
advanced military aircraft and anti-aircraft missile batteries,
has rejected the allegations of chemical weapons use by Syria as a "fabrication," and
promised that any attack on Syria would result in "serious repercussions." Russian forces
inside Syria have reportedly been placed on "full alert" as American naval
vessels capable of launching cruise missiles have arrived off the Syrian coast.
The United States and Russia appear to be heading toward a direct military confrontation
that, depending on the level of force used and the number, if any, casualties incurred by
either side, carries with it the risk of a broader conflict. While Russian (and Syrian) claims
of innocence regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack cannot be accepted at face value,
the fact that the United States has not backed up its own claims with anything other than a
recitation of accusations made by rebel groups opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad is
problematic insofar as it shows a rush to judgement on matters of war. Given the potentially
devastating consequences of any U.S.-Russian military clash over Syria, it would be better for
all parties involved to wait for a full and thorough investigation of the alleged attack before
any final decision on the use of force in response is made.
There are two versions of what happened in Douma, a suburb of Damascus home to between
80,000 and 150,000 people. The one relied upon by the United States is provided by rebel forces
opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a non-profit organization
comprised of various Syrian opposition groups funded by the Asfari Foundation and George Soros' Open Societies Foundation , at
approximately
12 p.m. the Syrian Air Force attacked the vicinity of the Saada Bakery using munitions
believed to contain "poisonous gas." The VDC cited eyewitness accounts from members of the
Syrian Civil Defense, or "White
Helmets," who described the smell of chlorine and the presence of numerous bodies assessed
to have succumbed from gas sourced to a Syrian "rocket." Later, at 7 p.m., a second air strike
struck an area near Martyr's Square, again using munitions assessed by eyewitnesses to contain
"poisonous gas." Doctors from the Syrian
American Medical Society (SAMS) described symptoms that indicated that a nerve agent had
been used. Images of victims in the locations allegedly attacked were released by a
rebel-affiliated social media entity known as the "Douma Revolution" and the "White
Helmets."
Douma is part of a larger district known as Eastern Ghouta which has, since 2012, been under
the control of various militant organizations opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. In early February 2018, the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Air Force, began
operations to recapture the Eastern Ghouta district. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive was as
brutal as it was effective -- by March, Eastern Ghouta had been split into three pockets of
resistance at a cost of more than 1,600 civilian dead. Two of the pockets capitulated under
terms which had the opposition fighters and their families evacuated to rebel-held territory in
the northern Syrian province of Idlib. Only Douma held out, where Salafist fighters from the
"Army of Islam" (Jaish al-Islam) refused to surrender. On April 5, the situation had
deteriorated inside Douma to the point that the rebel defenders had agreed to negotiations that
would lead to their evacuation of Douma; the very next day, however, these discussions had
broken down, and the Syrian military resumed its offensive. The air attacks described by the
VDC occurred on the second day of the resumption of hostilities.
There is a competing
narrative , however, provided by the Russian government and those sympathetic to its
position. After the breakdown of negotiations between the Douma rebels and the Russian
government on April 6, the story goes, the Syrian government offensive to liberate Douma
resumed. The Douma rebels, faced with imminent defeat, fabricated the allegations of a chemical
attack. Russia had warned of such a
provocation back in March 2018, claiming the rebels were working in coordination with the
United States to create the conditions for a massive American air attack against Syrian
government infrastructure.
Shortly after the Syrian government resumed its offensive against Douma (and after the
opposition forces publicized their allegations of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks),
the rebel resistance inside Douma collapsed, with the fighters agreeing to be evacuated to
Idlib. The
Russian military was able to dispatch units to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons
attacks and conduct a survey. According to the state-run Russian news, no evidence of a
chemical weapons attack was discovered. Representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent who claim to have
worked in Douma stated that they have seen no evidence of any chemical weapons use there,
either.
Beyond providing a competing narrative, however, Russia has offered to
open up Douma to inspectors from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons , or OPCW, for
a full investigation. This offer was
echoed by the Syrian government , which extended an official invitation for the OPCW to
come to Douma. On April 10, the
OPCW announced that it would be dispatching an inspection team "shortly" to carry out this
work. The forensic technical investigatory capabilities of an OPCW inspection team are such
that it would be able to detect the presence of any chemical agent used in Douma. While the
investigation itself would take days to conduct and weeks to process, its conclusions would,
under these circumstances, be conclusive as to the presence of any prohibited substance.
One major drawback to any OPCW investigation is its inability to assess responsibility for
the presence of any banned substances detected. In prior investigations inside Syria, the OPCW
was able to operate as part of the United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism
(JIM) , an entity specifically empowered by Security Council resolution to make such
determinations. The
mandate of the JIM was not extended , however, after Russia expressed its displeasure over
what it deemed to be the inaccurate and politicized findings regarding previous allegations of
chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. The United States has submitted a resolution to
the Security Council demanding that a new investigatory body be formed that would be able to
provide attribution for any chemical weapons attack inside Syria; whether Russia would veto
such a resolution or allow it to be passed has yet to be seen.
The bottom line, however, is that the United States is threatening to go to war in Syria
over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided.
This act is occurring even as the possibility remains that verifiable forensic investigations
would, at a minimum, confirm the presence of chemical weapons (thereby contradicting the
Russian claims that no such evidence was detected by its troops), and if the Security Council
passes a resolution allowing for a properly mandated investigation team, actual attribution
could be assigned.
Moreover, President Trump's rush to judgment on Syrian guilt is being done in a highly
politicized environment, coming as it does on the heels of
an FBI raid on the offices of the president's personal attorney . In times such as this, a
president is often attracted by the prospect of "looking presidential" in order to offset
personal problems (one only need to look at President Clinton's decision in August 1998 , at
the height of the Lewinsky scandal, to launch cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and
Sudan.)
If America is to place its military in harm's way, it needs to be in support of a cause
worthy of the sacrifice being asked of those who serve. Giving the OPCW time to carry out its
investigation in Syria would allow a fact-based case to be made whether military force was
justified or not, as well as support a determination of whether or not the risks associated
with the use of force were warranted. Pulling the trigger void of such information, especially
when Trump is distracted by personal political issues, is not something the American people,
nor their representatives in Congress, should tolerate.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to
War .
The president also faced unsurprising pushback
from his national security team, forcing him to clarify this week that the 2,000 troops there
now will stay only until the mission to defeat ISIS, which is "coming to a rapid end," is
finished. Of course his military advisors and many of his aides disagree.
A Pentagon spokesman has warned that ISIS is looking for " any opportunity to regain momentum
." Anonymous military officers speak of fumbling the ball "
on the two yard line ." Officials tell reporters that while the group is "almost completely
defeated," a string of renewed ISIS attacks could signal a resurgence.
Regardless of the outcome in Washington, Trump's instincts on Syria deserve discussion.
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation in Syria has cost us very little blood and
treasure, at least so far. Special operations forces (SOF) and "other government agencies" ably
partnered with our largely Kurdish proxies to break the back of ISIS's nascent state. The
group's conventional military power has been destroyed. Howev er menacing officials make it
sound, it's been estimated that the Islamic State has fewer than 1,000 fighters left on the
battlefield. Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto
capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.
Areas of ISIS control are tough to
even find on a map of the Syrian conflict.
For all these successes, however, we have been walking a knife's edge in Syria ever since
openly intervening there in 2014. Deconfliction with Russia has not been flawless: Turkey shot
down a Russian plane in 2015 and U.S. firepower reportedly killed hundreds of Russian
mercenaries earlier this year. That knife's edge has only gotten sharper over the past two
months, as Turkish troops invaded the Afrin region of northern Syria. Turkey's "Operation Olive
Branch" exposed the elephant in the room: America's only successful proxy, the Syrian Kurds,
are linked to Turkey's PKK, which Turkey, the European Union, and the U.S. have declared a
terrorist group. Our NATO ally is now openly at war with our Kurdish partner, as American
advisors do their best to stay off the frontline. In 2008, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden
bluntly told Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai: "Pakistan is 50 times
more important for the United States than Afghanistan." The same obvious wisdom applies in
spades to Turkey and Syria respectively.
What of the Kurds? If recent reports are to be believed, American Special Forces are
incensed they are being told to abandon a valiant, reliable battlefield ally. Squeezed
between a revanchist Turkey and a stabilized Syrian state, Syria's Kurds are not likely to keep
their independent project of Rojava. The United States declined to intervene to protect Iraq's
Kurds last year, when Iraqi forces quickly seized the Kurdish "Jerusalem," oil-rich Kirkuk,
after an abortive independence referendum. To pretend we have a greater will or ability to
protect Syria's Kurds is folly.
The Kurds should ask Vietnam's Montagnards how they fared as an American proxy, or question
the Palestinians about what they've gained from an American mediator .
Loathe though we may be to admit it, America has been a fickle friend for the majority of small
nations and peoples that have looked to her as a protector. Even many of our Afghan
interpreters who served in American uniforms and cashed American paychecks have been
abandoned to their enemies . Like a serial philanderer we can pretend that this time will
be different, but the reality is that America seldom has the patience or stomach for sustained
non-existential military intervention outside our hemisphere, particularly when casualties
mount. The victims of pretending otherwise are seldom Americans; they are Vietnamese, Somalis,
Iraqi Marsh Arabs, and many others. The current state of political polarization in Washington
and the primacy of the 24-hour news cycle have only hardened this long-standing reality.
Left to their own devices, Syria's Kurds can probably work out a modus vivendi with Assad's
government, which has other battles to fight and foreign backers of its own who would like to
draw down their commitments. Battles between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and
Assad's Syrian Arab Army have been few. Turkey has tolerated a Kurdish autonomous region on its
border with Iraq -- but it will not do so with Kurds who remain affiliated with the PKK.
Regardless of Rojava's fate, ISIS may well regenerate. It already has the local ties and
financial network
to thrive as an insurgency in western Iraq. That, however, is a governance and security problem
for Iraqis and Syrians, not Americans. The United States maintains an unparalleled ability to
project military power and destroy targets around the world, both with standoff firepower and
by putting troops into battle via air and sea. Should ISIS or another Salafist successor build
any real base of power again in the Levant we can rapidly deploy combat power to destroy it.
But staying there any longer remains a fool's errand.
Gil Barndollar served as a Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. His writing has
appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette , the Journal of Military Operations , and the Michigan
War Studies Review .
"I don't like "abandoning an ally" like this, but that alliance was never going to be long
lasting, and the Kurds have to have known that."
Yes. As a parting gesture, we could round up some of the louder-mouthed neocons and ship
them over to "independent Kurdistan" to spend a few quiet hours with their erstwhile heroes.
Let the Kurds vent their entirely understandable anger out on those who lied to and
manipulated them with the same glib ease that they once lied to America about Iraq's
WMDs.
'Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital
Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.'
I'd like to correct a couple of things, ISIS was destroyed in Syria, by the Syrian Arab
Army, and by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Mosuls and Raqqa were not 'retaken' or 'conquered'.
They were utterly destroyed by aerial bombardment, which is about the only thing we are good
at doing.
"... Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. ..."
"... The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war. ..."
"... If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy. ..."
"... But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there. ..."
"... If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention. ..."
"... Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure. ..."
"... Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors". ..."
"... Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region. ..."
Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was
opposed to
Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military
attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons
attack. He had no authority to do this, the attack was a flagrant breach of the U.N. Charter,
and it apparently failed to discourage the Syrian government from carrying out similar attacks
later on. The president ordered the "unbelievably small attack" that Obama administration
threatened to launch in 2013, and it made no meaningful difference to the course of the war or
the regime's behavior.
Trump tweeted out earlierin the day that
"President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay."
He didn't say what that "big price" was or how it will be "paid," but the fact that he thinks
it is a good idea to make threats against the Syrian government's patrons bodes ill for the
future of U.S. policy in Syria. The foreign policy establishment was beside itself last week
when they thought that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria, but they should be much more
worried that he will launch an illegal attack and plunge the U.S. in even deeper.
The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes
U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation
with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian
government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict.
Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S.
attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't
lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for
the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war.
If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be
engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately,
Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from
Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy.
It's true that I'm no genius, but after reading as much as I can and thinking it over I still
don't know who is the right horse to back, or what is the right side to be on in Syria. Assad
is a brute, Isis are brutes, the other parties of opposition are useless, and etc., and none
of it has anything to do with us anyway. To Daniel's point, we're keeping an army hanging
around in a volatile and illegal situation for no discernible point.
Except to hate Iran.
The longterm on Syria doesn't look good for anyone. I'm guessing, because of his long
history of ignorance and incoherence, Trump has no plan.
But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran.
Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with
about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries
with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would
likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and
diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there.
If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been
toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war
should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian
organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid
of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully
for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their
brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been
practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention.
"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line "
Interesting view. Obama imagined he drew a "red line" that Assad was not to cross, and
allegedly did. Trump's tongue apparently wore a Freudian slip when he rubi-conned this phrase
into twitter.
To make this a turn worthy of Croesumpus, let us just say that if Trump crosses that red
line of his own, a great war criminal will be destroyed.
"In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their
recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo to which
Russia was opposed. [The] Russian ambassador to NATO, warned that Georgia's NATO membership
aspirations would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia."
Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan
breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus
that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military
response. The result was utter failure.
Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the
circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel –
but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His
hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well.
Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner
Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts
– by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors".
Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many
openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region.
Trump doesn't have any instincts. He's just playing the old DC game. Pretend that you want to
do something, then act shocked after you didn't do it. Each party plays the game against the
other party, each house of Congress plays the game against the other house, Presidents play
it against Congress and the "courts".
===
This game wouldn't work in real life.
Example:
I shout to everyone in the house, "I'm going to the store to get groceries."
One hour later, after sitting in the living room watching TV, making no move toward the
car, I shout again:
"See what happens? I tried, but these evil other-party spirits wouldn't let me. You need
to vote these evil other-party spirits out of the house so we can have food!"
Huh you elect someone who says his military strategy will always be "listen to the Generals",
and are then surprised when the Generals want to keep fighting?
Of course Trump will accede. He has no coherent and consistent policy just Fox News
buzzwords spinning in his head. Now add John Bolton as his guiding light.
Mr. Buchanan is correct the U.S. is: "in a country where we have no right to be "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The U.S. is in Syria illegally, and what is even worse it is reportedly supporting
terrorists.
This is surely a crime, yet no charges have been laid. Why?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Much more evidence on this and other matters at link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html
The important point in Syria is that Putin is irreversibly bogged down there. He sinks or
swims with Assad, which means, sooner or later, sinks. He's a sitting duck who can do nothing
but sit there and wait until the US chooses to attack him. So there's no harm in leaving him
to stew. John Bolton's bête noire has always been Iran, which is supposed to be Putin's
ally. Going after Iran will put Putin on the spot. He has to decide whether to back his
"ally" or leave Iran in the lurch. Thus, putting Syria on the back burner and concentrating
on Iran forces Putin either to discredit himself by abandoning his "ally" or to bog himself
down in yet another conflict. Heads, Ukraine wins, tails, Putin loses!
"Yes, folks, your tax dollars are going to support Islamist crazies in Syria. The same
people who attacked Paris are being aided and abetted by the US – and if that isn't a
criminal act, then there is no justice in this world." Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2015 http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/24/turkeys-stab-in-the-back/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The USA has hundreds of military bases overseas. We should close most of them. Trump is
saying the right thing, unfortunately, we all know he doesn't follow through (that NRA thing,
that DACA thing, that wall thing, that coal thing, that lock-her-up thing, etc. etc).
It seems that the failure in Syria is related to the classical policy verse strategy
conflict. The military is once again put in a difficult position when the civilian leadership
tries to use a military solution to solve a diplomatic problem. The military was given the
task to destroy ISIS but that goal will be impossible without Turkey's cooperation and the
leader of that country has chosen a path toward appeasement by the United States or
confrontation.
There seems to be credible evidence of Turkey's support for ISIS in the flow of combatants
and military logistics into Syria as well as profiting from the sale and transport of ISIS
controlled Syrian oil through Turkey. Now we are seeing Turkey invading Syria and ethnically
cleansing our Kurdish allies from Syria's Northern Boarder. We still don't know what the
Obama/Clinton CIA and State Department was up to in Benghazi, but it did seem to involve the
flow of arms from Libya, and I have read reports that members of the Turkish government were
meeting with the killed ambassador before the attack.
In Syria is appears that the Assad, Iranian and Russian alliance was more focused upon the
rebels attempting to overthrow the government; rather than destroying ISIS. Once the United
States leaves there may be greater tolerance for ISIS as long as the government is not
threatened and ISIS may even be allowed to join that alliance to get some revenge against the
Kurds who were allied with the U.S.
We saw the recent Russian test of US resolve using mercenaries with disastrous
consequences. As long as the US remains in Syria there will be similar tests and what if is
Turkey decides to test the resolve of US forces?
Our NATO partner Turkey seems to have become more of an enemy than a friend, and also more
of a liability than an asset. Removing U.S. military assets from Turkey may be prudent,
followed by its expulsion from NATO. Expelling Turkish citizens from other NATO countries and
economic sanctions may be another strategy to make Turkey reconsider its continued
belligerence.
I don't recall anyone forcing Trump to appoint to top positions people who flat out refuse
his orders and block him from carrying out policy he campaigned on. There is a limit on how
much sincerity you can attribute to a man who says one thing, does the exact opposite, and
defend him as fighting some Don Quixotic struggle tilting at windmills.
Twelve days
after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone
call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at
Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our
actions?"
Grenier later wrote in his book,
88 Days to
Kandahar
, that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these
same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address
to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler,
Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him.
Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation.
"Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.
Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for
Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin
Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as
the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban
in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with
American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would
start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces
along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.
Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in
Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security
agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in
my twenty-seven-year career."
Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA
landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was
impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up
with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was
on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance
seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell
on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the
Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.
By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed
Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan,
marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.
But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by
Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld,
who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible
for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama
administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the
effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would
almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to
prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming
Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.
♦♦♦
The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused
but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's
Directorate S
,
a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While
Directorate S
stands alone as a comprehensive
exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of
Ghost Wars
, Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004
narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the
breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard
exposition of the period for years to come.
While the focus of
Directorate S
is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan
from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention
deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance
cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported
southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to
strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in
reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the
run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing
accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war
was over. Won.
But of course it wasn't.
Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the
Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as
Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar
reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers
responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed
(and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the
United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention
facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt
officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism
actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul
resistance.
More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to
be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of
the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the
remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us,
"deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of
American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure
that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring.
That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and
under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.
It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's
intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S.
officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the
Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his
close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the
CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.
♦♦♦
After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to
convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All
the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their
rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided
on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the
long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I
think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look
at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't
going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"
Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the
first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to
protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed
himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he
believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.
That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that
followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at
the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely
create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it
just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."
The value in Coll's
Directorate S
comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the
kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other
events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and
nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we
realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could
actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.
There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in
2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing
on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening
violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of
the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the
business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be
accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.
Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase
and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply
stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the
central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of
Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was
difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could
not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would
have to be "good enough."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to
The American Conservative
and the author of
The Pentagon's Wars
.
Robert Jervis and Mira Rapp-Hooper
warn about the dangers that come from misperception on both sides of the standoff with
North Korea:
If any U.S. strategy toward North Korea is to have a chance of succeeding (or even of just
averting catastrophe), it must be guided by an accurate sense of how Kim's regime thinks,
what it values, and how it judges its options. Washington must understand not just North
Korean objectives but also how North Korean officials understand U.S. objectives and whether
they consider U.S. statements credible.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is remarkably bad at understanding these things accurately. This is
not just a Trump administration failing. Most American politicians and policymakers routinely
misjudge the intentions and goals of our adversaries, and they often invent a fantasy version
of the regime in question that leads them astray again and again. One reason for this is that
it is simply easier to project our assumptions about what a regime must want than it is to make
the effort to see things as they do. Another reason is that many of our politicians and
policymakers mistakenly think that if they try to understand an adversary's views that must
somehow mean that they sympathize with the adversary or condone its behavior. Instead of trying
to know their enemy, our leaders would prefer not to for fear of being "tainted" by the
experience. This lack of knowledge is compounded in some cases by the absence of normal
diplomatic relations with the adversary. Our leaders are encouraged to take this self-defeating
approach to international problems by a political culture that rewards the people that strike
tough-sounding-but-ignorant poses about a problem and marginalizes those that seek to
understand it as fully as possible.
The first step in correcting these failings is to accept that some of these regimes regard
the U.S. as an "existential threat" and therefore view all U.S. actions with at least much
suspicion and fear as our government views theirs. The next step would be to recognize that the
main goal of any regime is its own preservation. We should be very wary of any explanation of
their actions that claims that an adversary is irrationally suicidal. Another step would be to
acknowledge that regime behavior that we regard as purely aggressive is very often the result
of the adversary's belief that it needs to deter our aggression against them. Our politicians
often talk about North Korea threatening the entire world with its nuclear weapons, but this
misses that in their relative isolation and paranoia the North Korean regime sees the rest of
the world, and especially the U.S., as a threat that needs to be defended against. Recognizing
these things doesn't make their acquisition of nuclear weapons desirable and it doesn't mean
that we approve of it, but it does make it understandable.
Our government's frequent inability to understand how an adversary thinks and what an
adversary wants is usually bound up with our government's overestimation of its own power and a
denial of the other state's agency. If many of our policymakers invent a fantasy version of the
regime to serve as a foil, they come up with unrealistic demands that they think the U.S. can
force the adversary to accept. Because we fail to understand what the adversary is trying to
do, we make demands that we ought to know will never be accepted. Because our government fails
to take the other side's agency into account, our policies are often crafted solely to punish
and compel and rarely to give them an incentive to cooperate or compromise. We then claim to be
surprised when this approach yields only intransigence and more of the behavior that we want
the other state to stop.
Why do you think it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant? Did our Presidents, who never have to prove merit, only popularity, ever appoint
people based on reliably tested knowledge of their field? No. They tend to appoint their
cabinet based on political calculation. Sometimes political calculation will raise up
knowledgeable people, more often not.
Welp, this is certainly a different kettle of fish from WWII, where the US government hired
ethnologists like Ruth Benedict to analyze Japanese culture and thought patterns (resulting
in her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.")
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant
Our highest officials are by design more ignorant than the rank and file. During the Iraq
war aftermath, Arabic speakers were actively rejected from jobs within the Coalition
Provisional Authority, because it was assumed their knowledge of the region would prejudice
them against the W adninistration's vision for the Middle East, and they didn't want nay
sayers telling them what they didn't want to hear.
This mindset is persistent, especially in republican administrations, and mirrors the
Soviet Union -- people are selected on the basis of their willingness to toe the ideological
line rather than their expertise.
They are not ignorant, the politicians support these policies because their donors benefit..
They have sold out to greed over country.. I assume that some do it for the easy wealth that
can be had, some of the wealthy ones for fame and never losing elections, but they have their
reasons, our country is not high on that list.
The one exception to this would be Obama's approach to Iran. He had no illusions about the
mullahs and IRGC, but he knew that it was simply impossible to perpetually diplomatically
isolate and militarily surround a nation of 80 million in its own region. The nuke deal was a
tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world.
Of course, this is the last thing that Israel or Saudi Arabia want.
Knowledge of History and Language would help enormously, but the US is so arrogant it expects
other countries to merely accept US assertions and to speak in English, on the basis of its
supposed Exceptionalism.
The Never Trump cabal can now claim total victory. Unsuccessful at preventing Trump from
winning the nomination or the general election, they have instead co-opted his presidency for
their own policies and programs.
With the nomination of John Bolton, Never Trump interventionists have installed one of the
unrepentant architects of the catastrophic Iraq War to head the National Security Council.
In recent months, ignoring and rejecting his own party's convention platform, Trump has
agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. Besides accelerating the deaths of Ukrainians and
ethnic Russians while laying waste to the civilian population of the Donbas, what advantage to
the people of the United States does this military escalation provide?
Last summer, in one of the strangest speeches in American history, President Trump announced
he would surge troop levels in Afghanistan -- and then in the same breath admitted it was a
mistake and something he didn't really want to do. That should show the conflict here: Trump's
instincts versus the establishment sorts around him.
Never Trumpers are not so secretly celebrating. They got the president they thought they
didn't want. And now, pretending they still don't want him, they can hardly believe their good
fortune.
Achieving their foreign policy goals is just the icing on the cake. They also got the
president to implement the entire Wall Street agenda: lowering taxes on the super rich;
advancing huge subsidies to the medical insurance industry; keeping the Export-Import Bank
funded; re-authorizing the ivory trade; shrinking the size of national monuments so that
multi-national corporations can turn our wilderness areas into strip mines and clear-cut
wastelands.
Then, just this week, in a reckless act of generational theft, Trump endorsed the second
biggest budget in U.S. history, caving in to every demand and desire of the UniParty and the K
Street lobbyists whom they serve.
In the 18th century, the cry went "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute!"
Trump's cry is "Billions for defense, but not one penny for a wall!"
Trump justifies his signature on the omnibus bill by claiming it was necessary for national
security. But that claim rings hollow when comparatively little is allocated for the protection
of America's own borders and the defense of its homeland. Americans intuitively know that the
real danger to their safety is not along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; it's along the
U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump's own laudable instincts have been neutered by the globalist,
interventionist generals and policy wonks who now populate powerful positions at the White
House and the departments of State and Defense.
Many reading this might now protest: what's wrong with passing the omnibus? Isn't it
providing the funds necessary for making America great again? But Donald Trump did not run for
office on a platform of bloating spending; he ran on opposition to massive debt increases and
specifically to many of the programs they pay for. The budget can be summed up in a paraphrase
of a Broadway musical hit tune: whatever crony wants, crony gets.
Has there been a fiercer critic of the Iraq war than Donald Trump? Yet he promotes to the
head of the NSC perhaps that conflict's most vociferous apologist. Trump promised he would end
the wars of choice, that he would refrain from taking sides in other nation's internal
conflicts. He called for a reasonable rapprochement with Russia with the goal of making America
and Americans safer. He specifically said he would wind down the military commitment in
Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible.
His only bellicose pledge concerned ISIS, which he promised to destroy. As we have seen,
that was one of the few promises he kept. In most other policy areas he has reversed his
campaign pledges. His foreign policy is no longer America First; it's evolved into the same,
old, dangerous, meddling, interventionist program of the last quarter century. Trump has
deepened U.S. involvement in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan without clearly defining
the missions, the goals, and the risks. If voters had wanted this, they would have elected
Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Yet of all the betrayals, the war on nature is the most grievous and shocking. As someone
who supported Trump from day one in June 2015, who has seen virtually every one of his
speeches, interviews, and tweets, I cannot recall a single word about the national parks or
monuments.
Had Trump forecast during the campaign how he would govern on environmental issues, would he
have been elected? Could those narrow margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Iowa have gone the other way? With his appointment of Ryan Zinke to the Department of the
Interior, Trump needlessly and recklessly alienated tens of thousands of voters who might
otherwise have supported him and who may indeed have voted for him in 2016. Although its hard
to discern exactly why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are, it would be a
mistake to discount the animus engendered by the unexpected assault on wilderness, open space,
endangered species, and America's magnificent national monuments.
The only national monument that Trump has failed to shrink is the Beltway swamp. In fact,
judging from the continuing spread of McMansions in Potomac, Maryland and Falls Church,
Virginia, he has effectively widened its borders. It's as if the chants from all those packed
stadiums during that long ago presidential campaign were "Fill that swamp! Fill that
swamp!"
It is now abundantly clear why the Never Trumpers are tittering over their cocktails. Trump
has staffed most departments of his government with establishment cronies and neoconservative
zealots. He now presides over the implementation of their agenda. In effect, we're
getting a variation on what could be called the third Bush presidency -- minus the decorum.
Trump's is also the all-talk presidency: talk tough on illegal immigration, but fail to
build the wall; talk tough on sanctuary cities, but fail to cut federal subsidies; talk tough
on illegal immigration, then push for the biggest amnesty since 1986; talk tough against the
Export-Import Bank, then fund it; talk tough on Obamacare, then fund big insurance to keep the
subsidies flowing; talk tough on reducing taxes, then screw millions of homeowners across
America by actually raising their taxes; talk tough on trade, then tiptoe around
Mexico and Canada on everything that really matters; talk tough on the deficit, then sign the
second biggest boondoggle spending bill in U.S. history.
Still, it cannot be denied: President Trump has accomplished much -- for the establishment
and their K Street lobbyists. They write the bills, Paul Ryan guides them through the House
amendment-free, and Trump signs them in to law.
For those who packed those campaign rallies, who wore those red "Make America Great Again"
caps, and for the rest of us mere plebs, Donald Trump's presidency is best summed up by The
Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures Gettysburg ,
Gods & Generals , and Copperhead .
"... Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages ..."
Millennials and members of Generation Z have spent much of if not their entire lives at war.
As I've noted in these
pages and elsewhere , the
Afghan conflict is now in its 17th year, with
more than 6,000 days having gone by, making it the longest war in American history. I was
12 years old when that war began in 2001; I'm now a month out from my 29th birthday. Beginning
next year, the newly enlisted 18-year-olds who are deployed to Afghanistan will be younger than
the war they are fighting.
The Iraq war began in 2003, saw a major troop withdrawal in 2011, and then was re-escalated
by former President Obama in 2014. American forces remain there today to aid in the fight
against the Islamic State, despite an agreement
with the Iraqis that was supposed to begin a troop drawdown. An American-led regime change
intervention turned Libya into a failed state. And we have blanketed countries such as Pakistan
and Yemen with drone warfare, so much so that
drones now haunt their citizens' dreams . U.S. Special Forces were on
the ground conducting activities in 149 countries as of 2017.
This kind of foreign policy adventurism is hardly unique to the present day. America has
been aggressively deploying its military on foreign soil since the late 19th century. As
Stephen Kinzer shows in his book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to
Iraq, we got our foot in the door of the regime change business all the way
back in 1893 with our acquisition of Hawaii.
Living in a post-9/11 world has shattered any inclination to view domestic life as separate
from and unaffected by foreign policy, particularly since the 2013 publication of classified
NSA documents leaked to the press by Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations threw back the
curtain on an omnipresent surveillance apparatus under which very few aspects of our digital
lives were left unmonitored -- all in the name of national security and the global war on
terror.
The Snowden leaks demonstrate how an adventurous foreign policy can have negative
consequences for liberty at home. Now, political economists Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall
have documented this phenomenon in their important new book, Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism .
In their words, "coercive foreign intervention creates opportunities to develop and refine
methods and technologies of social control."
Coyne and Hall, economists at George Mason University and the University of Tampa
respectively, introduce a concept for understanding this phenomenon called the "boomerang
effect." It works like this: the constraints on the activities of the U.S. government in the
realm of foreign policy are generally weak, which enables those involved in foreign
interventions to engage in practices abroad that would meet some institutional resistance on
the home front. Eventually, though, interventions end, the interveners come home, and the
practices employed on foreign soil are imported for use against the domestic population.
This importation happens along three separate channels. First, there is the development of
human capital -- the skills, knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to one's
productive capacity. All companies, organizations, and agencies have goals they seek to
accomplish, so they hire people with the right kind of human capital to execute said goals.
Foreign intervention is no different.
Among the characteristics necessary for interveners include extreme confidence in their
ability to solve complex problems in other countries, a sense of superiority and righteousness,
comfort with pushing the ethical envelope, limited compassion and sympathy for the targeted
population, and the association of state order with control. Interventionists, as Coyne and
Hall put it, treat "society as a grand science project that can be rationalized and improved on
by enlightened and well-intentioned engineers."
The second phase occurs when the interventionists come home. Some may retire, but many go to
work in various public- and private-sector jobs. The skills and mentalities that served them
well abroad don't disappear, so they begin employing their unique human capital domestically.
Those who land in the public sector are able to influence domestic policy, where they see
threats to liberty becoming manifest. Because of the relative lack of constraints when
operating in a foreign theater, tactics that would otherwise cross the line domestically are
seen as standard operating procedure.
Finally, physical capital plays a significant role in bringing methods of foreign
intervention back home. Technological innovation "allows governments to use lower-cost methods
of social control with a greater reach." The federal government spends billions annually on
research and development, which buys a variety of different capabilities. These technologies,
many originally intended for foreign populations, can be used domestically. One example the
authors point to are the surveillance methods originally used in the Iraq war that found their
way to the Baltimore Police Department for routine use.
The implication of the boomerang effect for policing doesn't end with surveillance. It can
also help explain police militarization, the origins of which lie in the foreign interventions
of the Progressive Era, specifically in the Philippines.
In the wake of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded its colonial territories to the United
States. This led to the Philippine-American War, a bloody conflict
that directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 200,000 Filipino civilians, and which
ended in 1902.
As veterans returned home from the Philippines, many sought careers in law enforcement where
they were able to implement practices inspired by their days in the military. The effect of
this was to "establish precedents whereby military personnel and tactics not only would be
considered legitimate but welcomed" by police administrations. Police militarization wouldn't
kick into high gear until the latter half of the 20th century, with the introduction of SWAT
teams and the federalization of law enforcement during the LBJ and Nixon years. The men behind
the development of SWAT were veterans of the Vietnam War.
What ultimately creates the conditions for this boomerang effect to take place? One factor,
Coyne and Hall argue, is fear. Fear and crisis, both perceived and real, creates "space for
government to expand the scope of its powers and adopt the techniques of state-produced social
control that it has developed and honed abroad." Fear can lead people to seek assurances from
authorities, which goads them into tolerating and even demanding expansions of state powers --
powers that in less fearful times they would not accept.
Once accumulated, that power becomes a normal part of life, and isn't easily given up, as
the great economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan . Anyone who has gone through airport
security over the last 17 years understands this, as the fear of terror attacks after 9/11 has
led to ratcheted up airline security measures by the TSA. This has resulted in some fairly
egregious violations of person and privacy, despite very
little evidence that they work.
Coyne's and Hall's book is a great, conceptually holistic investigation into how the state
can threaten our liberty. Economists regularly recognize the unintended consequences of
domestic policy; Coyne and Hall have explained the unintended consequences of foreign policy,
and their costs. It's particularly timely, as President Trump's tenure has seen decision-making
authority at the Pentagon pushed down the chain of command, leaving the United States'
war-making capabilities even less accountable and transparent. This book is an incisive
elucidation of what writer Randolph Bourne recognized a century ago and of which we could use a
perpetual reminder: war truly is the health of the state.
Jerrod A. Laber is a writer and Free Society Fellow with Young Voices. He is a
contributor to the Washington Examiner , and his work has appeared in Real Clear
Defense , Quillette , and the Columbus Dispatch , among others.
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.
"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories
in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective
journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.
The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to
make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting
to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen
Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.
And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing
Nazi science,
openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos,
and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called
sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.
To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism"
was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic
ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to
the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout
and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious
decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.
Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed
by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.
And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when
Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while
Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.
What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have
existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society
operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey,
Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry
Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.
Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to
understand the Nazi next door,
running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for
her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a
tweet-storm that included things like:
Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the
military.
He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made
them beg for their lives as he tortured them.
He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.
The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"
When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January,
the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen
Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January,
they went full DEFCON.
"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced
during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that
"The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of
all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."
And the current furor over The Atlantic
's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers
who are hitting the censor button.
But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into
the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong,
the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's
answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That
led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder
what
was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"
Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt
Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity,"
the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're
not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from
the opposite side of the newsroom.)
Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often
to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever
remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."
Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious
Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest
and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon
and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man
on another, equally highly-rated one.
What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the
news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence,
the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their
own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media
is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman
says that "When one side is
fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families
what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."
The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little
social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But
if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught
us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center
for any of us to hold on to.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s,Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not). He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player ,andworked
on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."
For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his
strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S.
military might. In "the most powerful office in the world,"
impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it
represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.
"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which
he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on
that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on
North Korea.
In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict
with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis
of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be
increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was
terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a
terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let
Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .
In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's
awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's
"victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right
Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment
in history.
We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the
surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" --
or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in
hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National
Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's
First Inaugural: "that was
some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.
The rule No.1: do not buy cheap routers. Do not use routers which are supplied for free by
your ISP. Buy only from proven companies with good security record. To use your own firewall (a
small linux server is OK) is a must in the current circumstances
There is no special value in Kaspersky anti-virus software. all such products can be used as
a backdoor in your computer (for example via update mechanism). Using complex and opaque software
actually makes Windows less secure not more secure. Periodic (say, daily) reinstallation from
trusted image is probably a better way, especially if Windows is really minimized and does not
contain third party software that has it's own update mechanisms or such mechanism are
blocked.
But attacks on routers is a new fashion and should be taken very seriously as most people pay
no attention to this crucial part of their business or home network. In any case a separate
firmware is needed after Internet router which now is not that expensive (a decent box can be
bought for around $300. For those who know Unix/Linux see for example Firewall Micro Appliance
or QOTOM
(both can be used of pfSense or your custom Linux solution) For those who don't see, for example,
Zyxel [USG40] ZyWALL (USG) UTM Firewall
Notable quotes:
"... Further findings suggest that Slingshot had common code with only two other known pieces of software, both malwares, which were attributed to the NSA and CIA, respectively, by analysts. Though various U.S. agencies are all denying comment, things are clearly pointing uncomfortably in their direction. ..."
"... Malware is not a precision munition, it hits wide targets and spreads out to bystanders. This is particularly disturbing to note if, as some reports are indicating, this malware was Pentagon in origin. ..."
Slingshot . The
malware targeted Latvian-made Internet routers popular in the
Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
Kaspersky's reports reveal that the malware had been active since at least 2012, and
speculates that it was government-made, owing to its sophistication and its use of novel
techniques rarely seen elsewhere.
Those investigating the matter further have drawn the conclusion that Slingshot was
developed by the U.S. government, with some reports quoting former
officials as connecting it to the Pentagon's JSOC special forces. For those following the
cyber security and malware sphere, this is a huge revelation, putting the U.S. government in
the hot seat for deploying cyber attacks that harm a much greater range of innocent users
beyond their intended targets.
Kaspersky's own findings note that the code was written in English, using a driver flaw to
allow the implanting of various types of spyware. Among those mentioned by Moscow-based
Kaspersky was an implant named "GOLLUM," which notably was mentioned in
one of the leaked Edward Snowden documents .
Further findings suggest that Slingshot had common code with only two other known pieces
of software, both malwares, which were attributed to the NSA and CIA, respectively, by
analysts. Though various U.S. agencies are all denying comment, things are clearly pointing
uncomfortably in their direction.
Cyberscoop
, one of the first news outlets to break the story, reported a mixed reaction among officials.
Some noted that Kaspersky Labs was simply doing what a security company is supposed to do.
Others, however, were less agreeable, suggesting it was an intentional attempt by Kaspersky to
undermine U.S. security.
The argument, as far as it goes, is that given the ostensible target areas -- the Middle
East, North Africa, Afghanistan -- Kaspersky should have concluded it was related to the War on
Terror and sat on their findings. The Trump administration already views Kaspersky as a sort of
hostile actor --
banning the use of Kaspersky products by any government or civilian federal contractor in
December, citing Kremlin influence (a charge that has been vehemently denied by the company).
This just gives them more justification for seeing Kaspersky as an adversary in the space.
Unfortunately for the Russian company, some American retailers have even followed suit,
pulling the software from the shelves on the grounds that it's Russian, and that therefore
suspect.
There has been no clear evidence that Kaspersky's software was serving as a backdoor for
Russian intelligence, though it was reported last fall that sensitive documents were stolen
from a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor's laptop via
its Kaspersky-made antivirus software . In a statement at the time, the company said,
"Kaspersky Lab has never helped, nor will help, any government in the world with its
cyberespionage efforts." Turns out that Israeli spies, spying on the Russian spies, disclosed
the intrusion to U.S. officials.
Kaspersky has consistently ranked near the top of antivirus ratings from virtually all
third-party reviewers. The company has sold its products to nearly 400 million users worldwide,
with 60 percent in the U.S. and Western Europe. Until now, Kaspersky was being used by several
major agencies in the federal government, including the State Department and Department of
Defense.
Ironically, this new Slingshot issue itself appears just to be a testament to how well the
company's security works at digging up extremely dangerous malware. It also underscores the
uneasy reality that the U.S. has been engaging in its own brand of cyber warfare all along.
Any claims that a specific piece of U.S. malware -- in this case, Slingshot -- was targeting
only al-Qaeda or ISIS bad guys is disingenuous as well. The exploit on routers is hitting an
entire region,
infecting an untold number of innocent people . Internet cafés are said to have been
hit in this, meaning everyone going into the cafes is at risk.
Malware is not a precision munition, it hits wide targets and spreads out to bystanders.
This is particularly disturbing to note if, as some reports are indicating, this malware was
Pentagon in origin.
U.S. civilian government surveillance is already doing great harm to general Internet
security, and does so by remaining in denial about the balance of good to harm that is being
done. The U.S. military, by contrast, has shown its willingness to inflict major harm on
innocents in pursuit of any war goal. As they start hitting regions with malware, all bets are
off on how far it will spread.
Security companies like Kaspersky Labs only afford the private user limited protection from
all of this malware, because they're constantly playing catch-up, finding new variants and new
exploits that the various pieces of software are using. Slingshot, for instance,
went undetected for six solid years .
The discovery means fixes can finally be implemented for the routers and the computers.
Novel exploits like this are rarely a one-time fix, however, as a slew of similar exploits from
other sources tend to crop up after one gets taken out. It's a never-ending battle.
In August, President Trump made U.S. Cyber Command
a formal military command , reflecting the growing view of the Internet as a military
objective. Much as America's other battlefields result in collateral damage on the ground, the
cyberwar is going to have a deleterious impact on day-to-day life in cyberspace. The big
questions are how bad things will get, and how quickly.
Jason Ditz is news editor at Antiwar.com , a nonprofit organization dedicated to the cause of
non-interventionism. In addition to TAC, his work has appeared in Forbes, Toronto Star,
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Daily Caller, Washington Times and Detroit Free
Press.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make
a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel,
congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.
Instantly, the briefing paper for the president's call was leaked to the Post . In
bold letters it read "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."
Whereupon the Beltway went ballistic.
How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin
with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did he not denounce Putin for interfering with "our
democracy"?
Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to
sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital
city.
If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First
Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to
damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock
worldwide.
And, yes, they give out Pulitzers for criminal collusion like this.
The New York Times got a Pulitzer and the Post got a Hollywood movie
starring Meryl Streep for publishing stolen secret papers from the Pentagon of JFK and LBJ --
to sabotage the Vietnam War policy of Richard Nixon.
Why? Because the hated Nixon was succeeding in extricating us with honor from a war that the
presidents for whom the Times and Post hauled water could not win or end.
Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down
the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like
resisters.
Ex-CIA director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been
compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin.
"I think he's afraid of the president of Russia," Brennan said of Trump and Putin. "The
Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could
expose."
If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he
does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with
America's highest secrets.
What's going on in this city is an American version of the "color revolutions" we have
employed to knock over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.
The goal is to break Trump's presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated
by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump's agenda of
populist conservatism. Then America can return to the open borders, free trade,
democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites.
Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.
In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the
border, bring back manufacturing, or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled
and bankrupted our nation.
Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban
return to Kabul, none are existential threats to the United States.
But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation,
America will not even be a country.
Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel's office of Robert Mueller, which this
city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency.
Mueller's team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox's team sought to do to Nixon: drive
him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019.
Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle -- to
the death.
Hence Trump's hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In
the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere.
He believes Trump is the target of a conspiracy, under which Jim Comey's FBI put in the fix
to prevent Hillary's prosecution and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take
down the new president the American people had elected.
The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d'etat. And
it is not wrong for them to think so.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
First of all British did have the poison they detected. Otherwise they would be unable to
detect "Novichok" (if there was such substance and this is not just a myth).
Notable quotes:
"... Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now. ..."
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam and ever since then I have been a card-carrying
skeptic of my own country. But I saw the human face of a war based upon lies and propaganda
that became the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. If we would get into a
shooting war over this affair, we would have to bring back the draft to prosecute this war
against Russia. Then the proverbial "merde" would definitely hit the fan.
And when Kim Sung Un assassinated his half-brother in Malaysia, the VX nerve agent was used.
The UK invented this agent in the 1950s at its government laboratory. But not one nation blamed
Great Britain as the culprit.
Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US
along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex.
Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man
based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at
work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda
reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially
said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now.
"... It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is
always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators,
military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the
United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b)
a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even
of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in
even being in the neighborhood of following international law.
The Secretary of Defense has
written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution
that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:
In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post,
Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."
He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military
support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate
exercise of self-defense."
The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal
arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis'
statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led
coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance.
U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so
it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than
the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance
somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties,
but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on
purpose and when the military
admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.
Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on
counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war
creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to
flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have
sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about
whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether
that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.
He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of
self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and
were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under
attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing
the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is
the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.
Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other
undesirable consequences:
As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S.
support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further
ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red
Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."
These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it
has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the
incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is
that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more
to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on
Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing
Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly
cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S.
military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for
continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.
Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it
ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their
country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of
Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the
vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from
Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the
interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict
that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants
to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war
as quickly as possible.
Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for
the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that
the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the
only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution
, the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed
Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military
forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there
exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition
planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in
the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces
are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war
on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither
administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do
this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or
its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and
there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on
Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.
"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""
Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop
anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we
don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.
Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after
this embarrassing confession by Mattis?
We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his
office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like
this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"
Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a
4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how
immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.
Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent
pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his
perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.
Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are
never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.
Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced
MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of
the National Security State.
Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is
substantially attenuated.
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or
U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.
First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions
and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and
the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).
Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the
murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya,
throwing both North African countries into turmoil.
Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb
non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed
chumminess with Iran.
The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how
many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is
willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but
actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the
administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.
Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend
perfectly predictable atrocities.
If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged
Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by
the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that
Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just
for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept
uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses
to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with
ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".
Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you
own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis
personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an
administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good –
by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy
the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people
of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis
in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout
the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more
likely to resort to terrorism.
Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias
demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.
The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even
keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
"... he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit. ..."
"... I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all. ..."
"... My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially
in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of
the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns
this around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with
this post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed
war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their
torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy.
Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching
on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine
before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking
to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united
against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that --
unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability
threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary
Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as
I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider
this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built
a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have
been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican
presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this
great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the
hopes and hearts of all of us."
Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its
own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."
George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle
East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.
Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."
... ... ...
After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees
to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's
Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back
down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?
Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one
of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since
Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence
Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.
But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants,
many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million,
composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.
Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation
and one people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and
Divided America Forever."
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:
" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants,
not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits
since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic
independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:
– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for
Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure,
education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist"
foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some
listed here, but the core probably remains.
Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column,
which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama
administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced
into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).
So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.
That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.
And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant.
The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.
At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of
them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2
of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.
pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
@anon
Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.
Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats
Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I'd expect nothing less from a Court
created and perpetuated by George W. Bush and his Republicans.
But, what do you know? Following Barack Obama's lead, President Donald Trump and his
Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the
same representatives are currently denouncing.
Also in contravention of a quaint constitutional relic called the Fourth Amendment is
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller has taken possession of "many tens of thousands of
emails from President Donald Trump's transition team." There is no limit, seemingly, to the
power of the special counsel.
Look, we're living in a post-Constitutional
America. Complaints about the damage done to our "democracy" by outsiders are worse than
silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the
consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who
govern.
In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.
To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.
The destruction is on display daily.
Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into
the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law -- a universally
upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.
The only aspect our clodhopper media -- left and right -- deign to debate in such
abortion-tourism cases is the interloper's global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a
service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a
facelift?
Cannabis: The reason it's notin the Constitution is because letting states and
individuals decide is in the Constitution. That thing of beauty is called the Tenth
Amendment:
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's right. In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured
through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and
the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis,
the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states
and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional
cannabis amendment, as if there's a need for further "constitutional" centralization of
authority.
After 230 years of just such "constitutional" consolidation, it's safe to say that the
original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once
lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that
would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside,
natural justice and the Founders' original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.
Consider: America's Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and
enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative
powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on
grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works
sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.
The welfare clause stipulates that "Congress will have the power to provide for the general
welfare." And even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the
limited powers so delegated; our overlords, over decades of dirigisme , have taken Article I,
Section 8 to mean that government can pick The People's pockets for any perceivable purpose and
project. Witness a judiciary of scurrilous statists that had even found in the Constitution a
mandate to compel commerce by forcing individual Americans to purchase health insurance on
pains of a fine, an act of force President Trump has mercifully repealed.
A few more observations, with which Ms. Mercer should agree:
The invertebrate Congress has been a weak link in the Constitutional system, deferring in
the last 50 years to the judiciary in matters of domestic policy and to the executive in
matters of foreign policy, most obviously war.
Turning the Constitution into a mystical, living document speaking through robed priests
has served to trash it.
The loss of the States' authority was gradual, but amending the Constitution to have
voters directly elect senators looks in retrospect like a key step in the national
government's arrogation of authority.
The world's gaudiest whorehouse is also wide open for business with foreign interests. And
why not? If Uncle Sam is trying to run the world, then shouldn't everyone in the Empire be
allowed to participate in the democracy?
" treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on."
To be correct, the US government considers its subjects to be chattels property. For my
part, the US is my crazy ex-girlfriend, who always wants to know where I'm going, who I'm
seeing, what I'm doing, and who annually wants a full accounting of every Dollar, Pound, Euro
and ounce I earn, spend or hold.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just
another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.
Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore
rally
Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's
roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance
detailed in the book.
"My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another
staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it
published excerpts on Monday.
The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host
of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The
War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.
The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury:
Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the
administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and
Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides
referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he
accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.
A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the
meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information
? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the
conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should
have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father
in the meeting "is zero."
When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom
he accused of having "lost his mind."
But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying
that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate.
He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
," Bannon said in
a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election
.)
... ... ...
Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House
panel, told
CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic
at a minimum."
Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"
Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose
[senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul
Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all
denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me
or trade me."
He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster,
Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he
questioned Kushner's
maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also
declared
his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
"... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
"... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
"... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
"... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
"... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
"... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
"... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
"... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
"... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
"... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that
he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's
American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often
end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical:
banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change,
a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than
identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist.
The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears
feared most.
Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch
solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending
this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him
all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable
consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly
simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for
the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural
power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress
and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.
Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an
electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims
of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced
Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again
learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle
of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise,
while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes
a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?
The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second
wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon
that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An
early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek
in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too
many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith.
It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled
in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst
for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's
conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.
As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff,
abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump
indicated in
a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into
a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.
But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either
because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars
who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young
men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon
all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative
There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It
wasn't 2008 anymore) Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively
open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.
5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing
exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was
unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.
It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.
Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they
may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)
A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't
matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much
like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.
Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean
conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.
Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but
not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to
see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably,
both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.
The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people
have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades.
They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched
themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible.
They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their
"masters."
These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep
of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom
to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will
not be put back in the cage.
The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery
and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The
Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals
who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.
The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge
as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed
for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react
in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists
will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.
Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position
on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)
Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go
here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're
starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the
West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News ,
and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at
the Vatican in the summer of 2014:
Steve Bannon:
Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in
this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in
Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can
achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and
particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle
of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people
throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let
people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really
of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.
It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at
the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century
in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100
years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was
globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic
Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians.
Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were
over a million casualties.
That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history --
virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you
know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of
that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.
But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not
just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the
Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed
the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought
this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying
principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal.
It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union,
England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a
barbaric empire in the Far East.
That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really
distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really
working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many
years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the
fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly,
is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of
capitalism.
And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if
the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I
feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs,
but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely
eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.
Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of
converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying
spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.
I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at
Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get.
I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough
environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound
namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."
But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very
disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and
Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places
like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with
these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that
is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it
doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were
seen really in the 20th century.
The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the
Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in
a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative
movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the
populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.
However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I
call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really
looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of
the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation
[that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's
going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal
freedom."
The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked
about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials
under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising
iteration.
"... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
"... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
"... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
"... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump,
denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead
about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.
In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went
on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the
election.
"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told
the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and
created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed
over."
Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil
liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with
the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.
In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and
anti-Semitic agendas.
"Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the
philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,"
Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are
attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes,
right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard
left that attract certain elements."
In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated
the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its
election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and
Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."
"It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going
to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."
"With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild
everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to
throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater
than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist
movement."
Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political
foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against
them.
"Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only
helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was
responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating.
The commentary is so dumbed down and
painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a
few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015
prediction of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away,
first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people
actually started voting in the primaries.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion
that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson,
Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the
next president -- [
Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22,
2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting
them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of
these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as
horrified by "
racism " and " sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these
positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM
handed this token opposition the Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the
climax.
Joshua Green begins his book Devil's
Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a
view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that
point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in
electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he
understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic
advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus
among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two
Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you
always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your
side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic
working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard
Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American
politics. The picture
that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that
is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not
make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his
goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the
Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he
realized that the rigid bureaucracy
that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was
middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in
2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life
comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has
been remaking center-right politics across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as
a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up
twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he
was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly
practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make
appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius
Evola and
René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although
not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that
refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention
of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three
daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his
beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his
relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and
Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the
movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete
biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them:
despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and
the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this
Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have
been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of
effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that
undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump
presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing
a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final
days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading
him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and
won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact
that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it
has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP
strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans
of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We
lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could
seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats
who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist
platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively
implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious
project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But
nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman
Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and
free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future
nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in
international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .
@Clyde
Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the
offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that
there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for
each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have
little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple
of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing
The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely
filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the
government than lawyers -- ? -- ?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years
experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want
to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my
application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In
retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- --
(I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my
support for Trump )
"... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
"... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
"... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
"... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
"... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
"... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
"... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
"... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
"... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor
and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods
and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade.
It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency
controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs
and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury
holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin.
I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element.
I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection
of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total
economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the
regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist
than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so,
then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China
and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment
by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan
in the 80s nd 90s.
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world
view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014
Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street
Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:
"The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
"I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
"[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
"The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules"
and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."
In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:
He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and
creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing,
is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.[.]
He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today,
ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad.
And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "If you look at the leaders of capitalism
at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost
all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.[.]
He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.
Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is
he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?
Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.
However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's
called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy
in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess
some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.
The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and
other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one,
but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace
was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps
his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly
made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related
riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape.
Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks
to its war promotion.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive
either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner.
So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to
finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when
it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration
while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner
will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.
I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.
The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires
instead of being suited in special stripes.
Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.
And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers...
but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used
the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him
a Nationalist.
@ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values
of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.
@ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).
@28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to
the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that
he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which
makes him an "Exceptionalist"??
Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?
At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Matthew Walther The failure and delusions of the adults in the room
Matthew Walther The 2020 Democratic frontrunner is a Republican
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
