Category: Uncategorized

Ross Douthat’s Sunday NYT column discussed the similarities and differences between the ongoing conflict in Syria and the Spanish Civil War.  While the analogy is by no means absurd (it occurred to me months ago), Douthat’s (correct) conclusion that the situation is likely to remain a stalemate for some time to come is evidence that the more appropriate analogy is to the Thirty Years’ War, as I suggested in a post in, I believe, August.

A Reactionary is someone who is attempting to use the political process to return society to a perceived Golden Age in which traditional values were properly respected.  This can be done through democratic or non-democratic means.  A Fascist pursues the Reactionary substantive agenda through unconstitutional mechanisms:  the press is shut down; the legislature is typically eliminated; individual legal rights are ignored; a cult of personality is created around the leader; and enemies are neutralized through the use of violence.

While some of Trump’s rhetoric is undoubtedly consistent with fascism, I don’t see any real evidence yet that either he or his constituents have given up on the democratic process or the rule of law.

For all of the ink that is being spilled on this subject, it’s really very simple.  As I noted in one of my earliest posts, the GOP electorate has always responded to swagger:  that is, the constant expression of simple and forceful opinions without any sign of hesitation or doubt by men who appear to be willing and able to kick butt if and whenever necessary.  Trump has simply taken this to the point where his swagger is virtually the entire message; consistency and ideology are almost beside the point.

You can argue that this makes Trump a caricature of a Republican, not the real deal, and you might be right.  God knows there’s nothing in his background as a semi-successful developer that logically entitles him to portray himself as a man on horseback.  These are unusual times, however, so it is possible that none of that will matter when the process is played out.

 

               All Along the Border Wall

“We’ve got to keep them out of here.”

Said the Trumpster to Ted Cruz.

“There’s too much crime here.

Too many more jobs to lose.”

 

“Businessmen, they send me funds.

Pastors tend my flock.

But none of them along the line

Understands it’s all a crock.”

 

“No reason to get frustrated.”

Ted Cruz he sharply spoke.

“There are many in our country

Who think that we’re all just a joke.”

 

“But you and I, we’ve fought through that.

We deal in hate and fear.

So let us both talk falsely now

The election’s getting near.”

 

All along the border wall

Drones kept the view.

Electric fences going up

Alligators, too.

 

Outside in the cold distance

The refugees did cry.

Two smugglers were approaching

The voters watched and sighed.

 

Parody of “All Along the Watchtower” by Bob Dylan.

Once in Berlin

Once in Berlin

A vast army held sway.

And woe be to you

If you got in its way.

 

Once in Berlin

An empire was created.

The neighbors weren’t happy.

Was less loved than hated.

 

Once in Berlin

A great war would begin.

The people exulted.

They were sure they would win.

 

Once in Berlin

The war didn’t go well.

The people were sentenced

To decades of hell.

 

Once in Berlin

People lived for today.

But storm clouds were rising

Outside cabaret.

 

Once in Berlin

Several failed revolutions.

The country lurched rightward.

A Final Solution.

 

Once in Berlin

The war started again.

The populace suffered

Through five years of pain.

 

Once in Berlin

The war ran into trouble.

Casualties mounted.

The streets filled with rubble.

 

Once in Berlin

The Allies decided

To split up the profits.

The city divided.

 

Once in Berlin

A great wall was built.

And if you defied it

You’d likely be killed.

 

Once in Berlin

The wall finally came down.

You could hear celebrations

All over the town.

 

Now in Berlin

New walls made out of glass.

Divisions extinguished.

The nightmare has passed.

 

Now in Berlin

They control the EU.

What worlds will they conquer?

What else can they do?

 

 

We live in times troubled by anger and doubt.

The left is just grumbling; the right screams and shouts.

No matter who wins, the rich keep the clout.

It’s hard to find things to give thanks about.

 

But think upon this:  we’ve been through much worse.

Our drift and stagnation can be reversed.

Your point is well-taken; there’s lots to be leery of

But you can be thankful you don’t live in Syria.

 

I will be out of the country for a week, so my blogging may be unusually limited.

Ross has a post in yesterday’s NYT in which he advises us not to ignore the “joy” that the ISIS terrorists get from their theology.  As usual, some of what he says is accurate, but there are some significant omissions from his analysis that are worthy of further discussion.

The genius of liberal democracy is that it puts up as few barriers as possible to the individual search for transcendence.  Ours may be a predominantly secular society, but if you are a Catholic seeking to live like St. Jerome, or a Muslim attempting to display his piety in the most rigorous way possible, our government is not going to do anything to stop you.  Since France is a more aggressively secular country than the US for historical reasons, I have no doubt that the situation is more difficult there, but the general proposition would still be true.

Where liberal democracy fails, from the perspective of the religious zealot, is that it makes it difficult for the zealot to impose his views on others.   If you insist that you are not “free” if you cannot require everyone else to live the same way you do, you are going to be frustrated here.  But is that really “freedom,” and is the zealot/terrorist entitled to any sympathy from us?  My answer, emphatically, is no.

Absurd as it may seem, there is a scenario in which this could happen.   If either Trump or Carson succeeds in maintaining a large lead, and Cruz is polling in second place, well ahead of Bush and Rubio, what other choice would the GOP establishment have?

It isn’t at all likely, but it is possible, and the irony of it would be overwhelming.

The GOP candidates all

Want to put up a refugee wall.

In the war against terror

It’s clearly an error

To show that our hearts are so small.

I have noted previously that Jeb’s lines of attack on Marco are pretty well limited to his lack of experience;  immigration, Rubio’s greatest point of vulnerability, is off the table, as their positions are essentially similar.  The other side of the coin is that Marco can only distinguish himself from Jeb by talking about his youth and his supposedly new ideas. When you combine the size of the stakes with minimal policy disagreements, you have a recipe for a campaign that is inevitably going to be intense and brutally personal;  one way or the other, hard feelings will abound at its conclusion.

It is likely that the outcome of the Florida primary will ultimately determine the winner of this battle.  It should be fascinating to watch.

The GOP stalwart named Marco

The Bush campaign sent him some snark-o.

They fought just like brothers

From two different mothers

Their issues aren’t really so stark-o.

Who is this God

Who says Frenchmen must die?

I find it quite odd

You’d believe such a lie.

 

Where in your book

Does it tell you to kill?

Upon second look

It says otherwise still.

 

What do you win

With destruction and hate?

Cause murder’s a sin

And the hour is late.

 

How do you know

Your opinions are right?

Where will you go

When your day turns to night?

 

Every student of revolutionary politics knows that one of the primary objectives of the insurgents is to force a pool of potential sympathizers to take their side by provoking an overreaction by the government.  That is exactly what IS is trying to do with their terror campaign.

One hopes that our leaders understand this, and can communicate their position to the public.  We’ll see.

Regular readers of this blog will recall a post from a few months ago in which I suggested a useful way to evaluate the foreign policy views of our leaders was to plot them on a graph with two intersecting lines:  one running from active to passive; and the other from values to interests.  President Obama clearly belongs in the passive/interests quadrant of the graph.  Where would one put Clinton and Sanders?

Based on his voting record and his statements on the campaign trail, I would place Sanders in the passive/interests quadrant, but further down the passive line than the President.  Clinton, on the other hand, is both more ideological and more open to military interventions than the President.  I would plot her very close to the intersection of the two lines.

As I understand it, Trump’s poll numbers are improving because the GOP electorate thinks he is a strong leader, even though he has no military experience and no background in security issues.

The man on horseback is not really an American political tradition.  However, if you’re going to have one, he should be riding a horse, not a golf cart.