Author: hamilton1788

In “The English Constitution,” Walter Bagehot divided the functions of government into the “dignified” and the “efficient.”  The “dignified” element, personified by the Queen, inspires the feelings of loyalty and unity that are an essential part of nationhood.  The “efficient,” personified by the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, actually gets things done.

The American system requires the president to perform both functions.  Trump is a grotesque failure as the “efficient” leader of the country, but his shortcomings are even worse on the “dignified” side.  He projects an America that most of us cannot recognize.  He is thin-skinned, narcissistic, and arrogant, and he lies all of the time.  He does not appear to have any kind of a sense of empathy.  He is the supreme divider, not a uniter.

Thus the case for an American monarchy.  But who might the monarch be?  After all, the US isn’t the stuffy old UK.  We need a monarch suitable for the age of reality television.

Say hello to Queen Kim and the House of Kardashian!

Trump characteristically told the country we would fight to “win” in Afghanistan on Monday night.  Yesterday, Rex Tillerson indicated that the point of the troop increase and the supposedly new strategy was actually to create breathing space and a stalemate which could ultimately lead to successful negotiations with the Taliban.  Tillerson’s comments were, of course, much more realistic;  their significance is that they point out just how little faith we can put in anything his boss says.

On a related note, Trump apparently complained during his Phoenix rally that the media pay too much attention to his tweets.  After you stop snickering, consider what he really meant by that:  there is a whole category of presidential speech is that mostly intended to fire up his base, is not intended to be viewed as objectively true by the public, and should not be judged as such.

In other words, the most powerful man in the world feels entitled to lie any time he wants if it serves his purposes.  No wonder he complains that the media treat him differently than any other president;  he is different than any other politician in my memory.

FAKE NEWS SHOULD STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO MY TWEETS!!!!

There are three logically coherent approaches to the Afghanistan conundrum:

1. Use carrots and sticks with the Pakistanis to deprive the Taliban of their sanctuaries;
2.  Put pressure on the Afghan government to get its act together by announcing a reasonable withdrawal date; or
3.  Increase troop levels in order to create a breathing space for the Afghan government to improve both its governance and the performance of its military.

All of these have been tried, and all have failed.  #1 will only really work if you can substantially improve relations between Pakistan and India–good luck with that. Obama tried #2, only for the Taliban to regain ground, as one would have predicted.  #3, otherwise known as “nation-building,” has been going on since 2001, with mediocre success at best.

The “new” Trump plan contains elements of all of these, but is fundamentally a “nation-building” approach, whether he acknowledges it or not.  He is apparently pretending that “nation-building,” in the past, has been an overly idealistic effort to bring democracy to Afghanistan in lieu of genuinely effective government, but that is not the reality of the situation.

In all likelihood, what persuaded him to take up “nation-building,” in spite of his negative comments during the campaign, was his even stronger fear of “losing” in Afghanistan.  That’s pathetic.

Refusing to lift the debt ceiling, and thereby defaulting on our obligations, would result in a decline in American credibility throughout the world, higher interest rates, and unnecessary economic turbulence.  You would think that avoiding that outcome would constitute “winning.”  However, Trump is all about himself, not the condition of the country, so standing firm in the face of congressional action of which he does not completely approve could be viewed as asserting his authority in the process, and thereby “winning.”

Which of these definitions of “winning” will he choose?  I wish I had more confidence in #1.

Israel has chosen to stay out of the civil war in Syria, presumably on the basis that having two groups of people who hate you killing each other can’t be a bad thing.  That approach works as long as the war continues.  Now, however, it appears that Hezbollah is going to emerge as a clear winner.  Its troops are battle-tested and better armed than ever.

Unlike Hamas, which is a flea bite, Hezbollah is a serious military threat, and it is backed by Iranian missiles.  The only thing that would make matters worse would be an Iranian nuclear capability;  that was eliminated by the deal with Obama.

And so, when the next Lebanese war comes (as it will), Israel will have plenty of reasons to thank the Great Satan Obama for his foresight in making the deal that Netanyahu so openly despised.  If Trump chooses to tear up the deal, the war will come sooner rather than later, and it will probably involve us as an active participant.

Trump and Bannon clearly agree that white nationalism is a political winner for the administration, because the left’s indignant reaction to it creates an equivalent backlash from the base.  If the objective is simply to remain in power with a 30 percent approval rating, they’re right, but can you actually govern that way?

Sucking up to Nazis is not exactly a good way to get Susan Collins’ vote on Obamacare repeal.  Offending PBPs and moderate Democrats is not going to increase your leverage over legislation.  It may be emotionally gratifying, but tactically, it’s a mistake.

At this point, there are only two ways to turn the ship around:  a tax cut and a short, successful war.  Look for both of these in the reasonably near future.

While Bannon’s departure got most of the headlines, it was equally noteworthy that Carl Icahn left, too.  The PBPs haven’t gotten their tax cut yet, and they find white nationalism embarrassing.  They are clearly souring on the administration.

So if the leading lights of the Reactionaries and the PBPs are gone, who is left? The military.  And what does that mean?

The biggest impact will be on foreign policy;  Trump is now surrounded by people who support an aggressive conventional policy, not an unconventional one. There will be no diplomatic revolution, and no openings to Russia, although Trump’s mouth will continue to present an issue with our allies.  On the domestic front, the generals have no particular agenda other than stability and coherence, so you can expect more of the same:  Reactionary social policies and PBP economic policies.

In the end, Bannon wasn’t either Thomas Cromwell or Thomas More;  he was just a damp firecracker.  Now he is slithering back to Breitbart and declaring war on “globalists” and “cuckservatives” in Congress, the media, and the administration.  What does it mean?

Here’s what I think:

1.  Bannon made the same mistake that many conservative pundits made;  he assumed that there was a coherent “Trumpist” doctrine and that he was the keeper of the flame.  “Trumpism” is about the erratic impulses of the man on golf cart, period.  Nothing about that will change; it will just make even less sense.
2. Trump was reportedly concerned that Bannon would be more dangerous outside than inside the administration.  He might be right;  Breitbart is going to turn up the temperature at just the time when we need it least.  The odds on a government shutdown, and possibly even a default, just got worse.

I don’t get it.  We’re calling it radical Islamic terrorism now;  the problem was supposed to go away as soon as we had the wisdom and the strength to give it its proper name.  That being the case, why is it still happening?

Frank Bruni, a gay white man, wrote a column in Sunday’s NYT in which he addressed the argument that he enjoys “white privilege.”  If you wanted to draw the right-wing caricature of the Democratic Party, you could do far worse.

There are prominent African-Americans who believe that white people should be required to pay them reparations.  But all straight people, including African-Americans, have oppressed gay people for thousands of years–aren’t gays entitled to an offset?  What about women, who didn’t earn equal pay for equal work?  Surely everyone should owe reparations to Native Americans.  What about white people who are descended from Union soldiers who died fighting to end slavery, or white people whose ancestors immigrated after the end of slavery? What about mixed race people:  are they victims or oppressors?  The list goes on and on.

The Democratic Party needs a message of unity and uplift if it wants to win future elections.  It can’t pander to bigotry, it should rebut the false narrative that white Christians are victims, and it can’t tell white workers that they are the only America, or even the default.  But it has to assure them that they are a cherished part of the community entitled to the protection of their government, not just a bunch of oppressors who need to be cut down to size.

In other words, if all you have to offer white workers is guilt and penance for oppressive acts committed by their ancestors, don’t be surprised if they vote for Trump.

The white Southerner felt like a stranger in his own country.  The US government had been taken over by people who were hostile to his values.  His treatment of the African-American population had become a volatile political issue.  His religion, rural culture, and martial values were becoming swamped in a land that was increasingly dominated by immigrants, factories, and large northern cities.

Is this the US after 1860, or after 2008?  You decide.

One thing is certain:  battles that are ostensibly about the past are really about the present.

The white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville are members of the Reactionary faction of the GOP.  As such, they are an important part of the base, not just for Trump, but the entire Republican Party.

They have an uneasy relationship with the other factions.  Christian Democrats, of course, genuinely abhor them.  PBPs find them embarrassing, but use them as lobby fodder for the things that really matter–tax cuts and deregulation.  In a similar vein, the Conservative Libertarians use them to campaign for reductions in the size of the state.

PBPs in particular have become very good at attracting Reactionary votes without looking like racists to the general public.  The difference between Trump and the average GOP politician is that he doesn’t care about the optics, and he genuinely sympathizes with the Reactionary agenda.  The Reactionaries, for their part, are clearly tired of providing votes for tax cuts for the wealthy without receiving anything in return.  Hence, the conspicuous divisions in the GOP that are largely responsible for the lack of progress on legislative issues.

There are two new GMC commercials in which the narrator expresses contempt for the notion that one might merely aspire to be a good person.  The objective, according to the narrator, is to be the boss:  to dominate your surroundings and kick butt in your enormous, menacing-looking black truck or SUV.

The vehicle is clearly a metaphor for Trump and his ethics.  Wimpy losers need not apply here.

Apple, on the other hand, is running a commercial in which The Rock tells Siri to remind him to dominate the day.  Siri, of course, agrees.  The Rock then tears open the door of his trailer.  Siri immediately sends him an e-mail telling him to dominate the day.  He assures the world he’s already on it.

The commercial is satire aimed at Trump and his ethics.  It should sell lots of iPhones to blue people.

My reactions to yesterday’s spectacle:

1. Like many right-wing talk show hosts, Trump only really sounds authentic when he’s angry.  When he tries to talk about unity and healing, it looks like an act.
2. Does anyone really doubt that he is capable of pressing the button just because he’s pissed off at someone?
3. Does Kelly still believe that he can bring order to an administration run by the Wizard of Id?
4. While there is undoubtedly an element of calculation to Trump’s embrace of the far right, yesterday made it clear that there is a genuine emotional connection, as well.  Of course, that won’t prevent him from screwing them over in the name of “winning,” as he showed during the Obamacare repeal fiasco.