Author: hamilton1788

A good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun.  GOP congressmen should carry even during baseball practice.

Bernie Sanders isn’t really a socialist (he wants to break up the banks, not nationalize them), but he clearly does see the world through Marxist, class-based lenses.  In his view, Wall Street financiers are responsible for all of the country’s ills;  issues involving racism, sexism, religion, and other matters of identity are either the result of false consciousness or are red herrings created by the cunning financiers to divide and conquer.  His plan for the Democratic Party is to reject support from the wealthy and to turn the party into a vehicle for working class people by vastly expanding the welfare state.  As a result, hordes of previously disaffected nonvoters will begin participating in the political process, white and minority voters will hold hands and march as one, and the Democrats will start to win elections again.

As if.  This approach did not win him the Democratic nomination, as the army of the disaffected predictably never showed up, and it certainly had nothing to offer Republicans and independents.  The hard facts are that identity politics drive the American electoral system, and are not the product of a Wall Street plot;  that Americans are generally suspicious of the welfare state, and only support expanding it when the benefits appear to be “earned” through work; and that issues of culture, barring a conspicuous change of heart from the party, are likely to prevent the Democrats from winning many rural votes in the foreseeable future.

We definitely need a more effective welfare state attuned to the demands of the 21st century, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be larger.  The Democrats also need to reach out to rural voters by showing that they accept their culture.  What we don’t need is candidates who propose a bunch of poorly-considered new government programs just for the pleasure of making rich people pay for them.

And oh, by the way, someone should tell Bernie that Corbyn might have outperformed his dismally low expectations, but he lost the election by a large margin.

Donald Trump was elected president without the support of the GOP establishment and with few ideological commitments, which gave him unprecedented freedom in choosing how to govern.  He had the following options:

1.  Govern as a man above party.  Combine GOP-friendly tax cuts and deregulation with infrastructure plans that would appeal to Democrats.  Cut down on the partisan rhetoric and call for patriotism and unity.
2.  Morph into an establishment Republican.  Fill the government with traditional figures.  Give up tweeting, cut Steve Bannon loose, and stick to the basics of tax cutting and deregulation.
3.  Combine the unpredictable, scattershot approach that won him the election with swaggering, hard line GOP positions on virtually everything.

As we know, he chose #3, and the American public has been suffering for it ever since.  The point, however, is that the decision was not inevitable, or dictated by events.  He chose it, and we have to live with it.

Readers of this blog will know that in the ongoing battle between values and interests, I tend to support the interests side, but I view Trump’s foreign policy ideas as a caricature of “realism.”  Here are a few more observations on the subject:

1.  Attempts to impose American values by force almost always fail.  Defenders of the Iraq War always cited to Germany and Japan as success stories, but those countries had at least some democratic traditions, and, more importantly, they were totally shattered and dependent on American goodwill after World War II.  Iraq and Afghanistan were left mostly in place after the Bush campaigns.  In the final analysis, the level of political and physical destruction caused by the war may well be the difference between success and failure when it comes to nation-building.

2.  If you want to rely solely on American success at home to promote our values, don’t disparage our values and run the country into the ground.   Trump doesn’t seem to understand what damage he is doing to our prestige abroad by essentially dismissing American exceptionalism and democratic values as a fraud.

3.  Values and interests don’t usually conflict.  Sometimes they clearly do, as in Bahrain, for example, but mostly they don’t.  Our most important alliances are based on both.

4.  Sometimes interests have to take precedence, but when they do, we should make it clear that we are engaged in a business relationship.  Just because we have to engage with Duterte doesn’t mean we have to tell the world he’s doing a great job with his drug issue.

5.  American values are a part of the foreign policy environment that cannot be dismissed.  A true realist will keep American values in mind when he makes decisions;  they are a factor that simply cannot be ignored.  Trump will find this out if he tries to send money and troops to prop up despots in the Middle East.

 

False equivalence has always been the rhetorical weapon of choice for the American far left.  If Stalin had gulags, well, what about our Jim Crow laws?  If the Soviets intervened to crush rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, what about Iran, or Chile, or a host of others?  If the Russians had the KGB, what about J. Edgar Hoover?  And so on.

Oliver Stone is the proud heir to this intellectual tradition.  It is clearly his objective to destroy our illusions about American ideals and the rule of law and expose our society for what he thinks it is:  a neo-fascist state based, not on democracy and law, but on money and power.

The interesting thing here is that his view of America and Donald Trump’s have much in common: hence, his Putin interviews.  The difference between the two is that Trump has no objection to a Social Darwinian America (he just views it as the natural order of things), while Stone dreams of creating a purer America in which the rich and powerful finally receive their just desserts.  Good luck with that.

Red states, on the whole, tend to be poorer than average, and receive more federal government funds per capita than blue states.  The Trump budget will have a disproportionately negative impact on them.  How can that be?  Why would Trump cut benefits for his own supporters?

There are three explanations for this phenomenon.  First of all, plenty of the red state benefits go to poor minorities who are loathed by the GOP;  to that extent, there is no contradiction.  Second, as I have noted previously, the welfare state in the US typically only enjoys strong support even among its beneficiaries when the wealth redistributions appear to be “earned.”  Third, the sense of tribalism, based on issues of culture, is frequently stronger than economic self-interest. And so, it would not surprise me to see large numbers of poor white working people in red states decrying cuts to government programs that help them, but insisting they will continue to vote for the GOP.

 

Donald Trump made it quite clear during the campaign that he despises “nation-building.”  That’s hardly a surprise;  nation-building is long, expensive, thankless, and frequently unsuccessful work.  It’s hardly something that would appeal to a man with the patience of a gnat.

Unfortunately, you can’t just blow the Taliban to hell and be done with it as long as they have a refuge in Pakistan.  That leaves you with two choices:  give the Afghan government the resources to fight and then tell it to sink or swim; or escalate the war and try to strengthen Afghan political institutions for an indefinite, and probably infinite, period.

Obama preferred the first option.  It appears that Trump, prompted by the generals, will probably choose the second.  Another name for Option #2 is “nation-building.”

Life in the time of Trump

Corruption really stinks.

A million lies

The truth has died

We don’t know what to think.

If you dare to contradict him

He’ll just call your words fake news.

Will we become our enemies?

The nation has to choose.

A few days ago, Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders felt compelled to tell the press and the world that “The President is not a liar.”  Sanders, like everyone else, obviously knows better, so that statement itself was a lie.

Trump’s entire career can be viewed as a rebuke to Kantian ethics.  The questions for today are:

1.  What are the origins of his attitudes towards spoken truth?
2.  What purposes do his lies serve?
3.   What impacts do they have on the US government as a whole?

My responses are as follows:

1.  His father must have taught him at an early age that the world was a sort of Social Darwinian dystopia, and that anyone who believes in concepts like truth and the law is just a sucker.  The powerful rule, and the weak and foolish drool.
2.  Some of his lies, like most lies, are intended to deceive.  Others are an attempt to bind his supporters closer to him.  Most of them are just projections of power and ego.
3.  Consider this example:  Jim Mattis recently gave a speech to our Asian allies in Singapore in which he indicated that the Trump Administration wanted to maintain a rules-based international system and that Trump would never trade their vital interests for Chinese assistance with North Korea.  No one doubts that Mattis himself agrees with those propositions, but they fly directly in the face of Trump’s behavior, which makes Mattis look like a fool or a liar.  This goes on every day and damages the credibility of both our country and all of its individual agents.

The Comey affair has, predictably, shown off many of Trump’s worst characteristics:  most notably, his complete indifference to democratic norms. The question now is, what does it all mean?  Will his base desert him?  Will he be impeached?

The inconvenient truth is that this episode has only confirmed what everyone on both sides of the aisle already knew about Trump.  To his detractors, it proves that he is utterly unfit to be president;  to his base, it just shows how powerful and malignant his enemies within the “deep state” are.

He’s not going to be impeached or indicted–at least not over this.  Where it matters is in the legislative process;  if you’re, say, Susan Collins, and you’re told that you have to vote for AHCA because the GOP needs to win one for the Trumpster regardless of its impact to your constituents, you’re probably that much less likely to go along.

You just have to believe that Theresa May loathes everything about Donald Trump.  She needed American support in a post-Brexit referendum world, however, and she has undoubtedly read all those articles about how Margaret Thatcher managed her relations with the, shall we say, less intellectually astute Ronald Reagan, so she chose to suck it up for her country and provide overt support for the Trumpster.  In some respects, it seemed to be working.

Unfortunately for her, it didn’t go over well with the British public.  I suspect those pictures of her holding Trump’s hand inspired lots of young people to go out and vote Labour.  Who could blame them?  I probably would have done it, too.

On the ex-FBI man named Comey.

You could say that he isn’t Trump’s homie.

Just one of them lied.

You can tell if you try

For just one of them’s full of baloney.

Thanks again to those Obama bugs and cameras, we know what really happened during that Comey/Trump meeting:

Comey enters the Oval Office.  Trump is there with Jared Kushner and Jeff Sessions. Comey kneels before Trump, who deigns to let him kiss his hand.

DT:  OK, I need the two of you to leave now.

JS:  Why?

DT:  I’m going to be discussing family business with Jim.

JS:  But I thought we’re all family here.

DT:  That’s not how it works.  Sessions leaves; Kushner lingers.

DT:  Why are you still hanging around?

JK:  I’m your son-in-law.

DT:  Only blood relations are involved in the family business.  You don’t count.  If Ivanka were here, it would be different.  Kushner leaves.

JC:  Why did you call me here, Mr. President?

DT:  Do you remember what I told you when I said you could keep your job?

JC:  Something about performing a service when you demanded it?

DT:  Exactly.  It’s time for the service.

JC:  What is it?

DT:  Mike Flynn is a good guy.  I hope you can back off him.  If you know what I mean.

JC:  I can’t do that.  It’s an ongoing investigation.  I have obligations to the American public.

DT:  You don’t understand.  Your obligations are to me.  I am the American public.  That was decided in November.

JC:  But my position is independent of anyone in power.  That’s why I have a ten year contract.

DT:  No.  You work for me, and you owe me complete loyalty.  Period.  That’s the way it was in my business, and that’s the way it is now.

JC:  I’m doing my best to work with you, but I can’t ignore my oath of office.

DT:  Either perform the required service or face the consequences.

Comey leaves.  A few days later, Trump fires him.

As a result of yesterday’s election in the UK:

1.  The Conservatives vastly underperformed and lost their majority.
2.  Labour overperformed, but is still nowhere close to winning a majority even after seven years of opposition.  They are also saddled with a leader who is almost universally viewed as being unfit for high office.
3.  The SNP lost seats.  Scottish independence seems a long way away.
4.  The Lib Dems lost their chance to become the primary opposition to the Conservatives.
5.  UKIP no longer has representation in Parliament.
6.  The UK will have a weak government at a time when it cannot afford one.
7.  Merkel and Macron will not have a reliable partner with whom to negotiate.
8.  Donald Trump’s best friend in Europe (other than Putin, of course) has been badly weakened, and may have to resign.

I don’t see any winners here, except possibly Putin and Xi, who don’t care that much.

It’s decision time in the UK.

Will the Brits vote for Corbyn or May?

For a man from the past

Who will leave us aghast,

Or a woman without much to say?