Trump's Game

He could fire them all.  Close down the investigation.  Bust all the Obama holdovers down to buck private, or simply get rid of them.  But he doesn’t, and the question is why?  They constitute a chronic thorn in his side… a stone in his shoe… a speck in his eye.  The irritation and aggravation must be tremendous, and yet he puts up with it.  So… assuming that he’s not oblivious and completely out to lunch, the question remains. 

Oh, we can’t assume that, you might say?  My answer is that anyone who can not only survive the rough-and-tumble world of New York City real estate but make a fortune there can, basically, handle anything else the world might dish out.  For decades, he’s been dealing with state and local officials of varying levels of competence (my guess is mostly low), with a regulatory structure than would make the FDA green with envy, with bankers, and (out of sheer necessity) with the Mob.  If the average Congressman were parachuted into that environment they’d last about as long as a paper airplane flying into Kilauea.

So “fugeddaboutit”, as they say Trump’s home town -- this guy is the toughest of the tough.  He has to be -- and the best evidence is that he’s survived and prospered in, arguably, the toughest town on the planet, compared to which Washington, D.C. is the Land of the Lotus Eaters. 

So, again, what’s his game?  Theory #1, which is pretty much the conventional wisdom, is that it’s all about political impact.  A field littered with the remains of slain enemies might look good to Trump’s hard-core supporters, but it could turn off a lot of people who voted for him and, this year, are likely voters for Republican candidates.  Ironically, in this respect Trump is showing more consideration for the Republicans than they’ve ever shown for him; he really wants them to win in November and doesn’t want to spoil their chances -- which is more than you can say for most of them two years earlier. 

Of course, you could say that his main motivation for supporting Republican candidates (or for staying out of the way, as the case may be) is that he knows that if enough Congressional seats are “flipped” in November his impeachment is going to instantly become Job One (as if it isn’t already).  And as circuses go, that would make the Mueller investigation look tame and downright boring.  Well yes, that certainly has to be on his mind.  But he’s under the impression (not shared by most Republicans) that what’s good for him is good for them, and vice versa.  He’s being a team player, in other words -- but on his own terms, which is probably why he’s still getting so much resistance from the Republican mainstream. 

Rush Limbaugh is, as far as I know, the originator of Theory #2, which is that Trump actually prefers being seen as the victim -- as David to the Opposition’s Goliath.  Or, I would add, being seen as someone who can get things done despite their best efforts -- almost like relegating them to side-show status.  If you think about the various voter groups out there, it makes sense -- his hard-core supporters seem to be more firm than ever, and the “gray middle” is even starting to appreciate his endurance, according to some of the polls.  On the other hand, to fight back -- to topple Goliath -- would, again, please his core but might cause everyone else to retreat in dismay.  Plus, paradoxically, the closer his enemies believe they are to victory, the more deranged they get.  You’d think they could start to relax a bit at this point, the way a football team will put some of their second-string people in when they are way ahead in the fourth quarter.  But this is not happening, and all I can imagine is that frustration is mounting that, as day after day goes by, Trump remains in the White House, and when they hear the words “President Trump” it’s as if someone was pouring a bucket of burning coals on their heads.        

Now, please note that these are not mutually exclusive theories -- they can both be true, and can be working in a symbiotic manner.  He holds off on punishing his persecutors, which should be seen as a show of loyalty to the party and its candidates, while at the same time garnering support from people who see him as a victim of  the many-headed hydra known as the Opposition.

And then there’s Theory #3, which is, again, perfectly compatible with the first two.  The longer this investigation/farce/witch hunt lasts, the more obvious it becomes that there is profound corruption at at least the senior levels of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the various intelligence agencies.  Their credibility suffers more each day, and it’s a wonder there hasn’t already been an uprising from the ranks in favor of stopping all this nonsense.  (I understand there is plenty of “murmuring” going on, however -- and that’s at least a start.) 

Now, one could say (as many have), what good does it do the country for all of this corruption to be exposed, and thus for the organizations in question to be weakened?  But don’t the corrupt aspects of these operations deserve to be exposed?  And as far as “weakening” is concerned, that’s like arguing that removing a tumor “weakens” the patient and that it should, therefore, have been left alone and allowed to continue to grow.  Better to have these outfits suffer a few blows but then given the chance to recover and regain not only their integrity but a sense of their actual mission (as opposed to the current one of deposing a president, which, it seems, is taking up all of their time these days, to the detriment of who knows what sorts of far more important work). 

So yes, the organizations are being exposed, but so are many individuals, who, as I’ve said before, are becoming more fanatical every day and getting to the point where they’re willing to pretty much put it all on the line for the sake of this crusade.  And many have already fallen by the wayside, while Trump is still on the defensive; imagine what would happen if they finally ran out of ideas and had to deal with a still-intact, and re-energized, Trump and his administration?

This brings me to Theory #4, which is also compatible with the other three.  I call it the Rope-a-Dope Theory, and if you’ll recall the famous strategy of Muhammad Ali, it involves sitting back and taking non-lethal blows, and letting your opponent tire himself out, at which point you come back to life and finish him off.  This is not the same as the sheer accumulated degradation of Theory #3; it’s a pure matter of energy and will.  (Robert Mueller has to sleep sooner or later, right?) 

So we see signs of each of these theories pretty much every day in the news.  Trump is playing the victim, but a strong one.  He’s doing his best to prevent political catastrophe.  And he’s using the best weapon he can against the Opposition -- namely, allowing them free rein -- in other words, allowing them to prove to the American public what sorry specimens they are (and, by implication, what sorry specimens any politicians rooting for them are).  As his enemies grow more and more deranged and desperate, Trump can come off looking downright cool and rational -- even if still feisty and a back-talker.  If he had tried to pay the Democrats to make Stormy Daniels the new face of their party, it would have been considered sheer lunacy -- but now that they’ve done it to themselves, well… it just represents even more sinking into the muck.  And they’re not finished yet, you may be sure.  But then neither is Trump. 

So yes, it’s a game, and it’s for keeps, and it’s worth our attention because it offers a rare opportunity to see the true power structures and relationships of the government and its facilitators in the “private sector” exposed as seldom before.  We have a chance to meet the Deep State, up close and personal.  And if they’ve taken the gloves off, they’ve also doffed their accustomed masks, and that is a remarkable thing indeed -- seen perhaps once in each generation, if that.  The very fact that they are willing to risk so much tells us that there is a lot to risk -- much more than the average citizen could ever have imagined. 

And!  Unlike certain other “crises” involving certain other presidents over the years, this doesn’t even seem to be having much impact on Trump’s pursuit of his agenda.  Richard Nixon was distracted, to put it mildly, for many months by Watergate, and Bill Clinton had no problem dropping everything to defend himself against impeachment.  But both of those episodes had a predictable outcome -- Nixon’s downfall and Clinton’s survival.  In this case, the outcome is not so certain, and that’s what makes it interesting (kind of like a close election, come to think of it).  I doubt if Trump uses up very much of his day worrying about these matters; he’s got better things to do, and he is, in fact, doing them -- to the extent possible given a comatose Congress and a hostile court system.  Someday even his enemies may be forced to say, “Never have so few accomplished so much against so many.”   

It's Springtime for Trump and America!

Actually, it's the second springtime since the White House was taken over by this strange orange guy who, according to the media, everyone hates and no one likes (except the usual deplorables), and yet no one has been able to do anything about it as yet.  Which is kind of remarkable considering the magnitude, breadth, and depth of forces arrayed against Trump.  Think, now -- has it ever happened before, in all of American history, that the entire government outside of the White House (and possibly excepting some of the military) has been arrayed in open opposition to, and defiance of, the president?  Including the vast bulk of the Executive Branch, which he is supposedly the head of?  I'm not sure how many people are fully aware of how exceptional -- and unsustainable -- this is.  It seems as if "something's gotta give" and yet we go along, one day after another, living with this impossible but very real situation (which, by the way, must have our “allies” quivering in their boots and our enemies helpless with laughter).  As I've observed before, if this is a coup d'etat it's not only the slowest one in history but the least competent.  But I know, they all want to make sure it's “legal” -- that it doesn't create a “Constitutional crisis”, as if we're not already in the middle of one.  (Any time the entire federal government is arrayed against an elected and sitting president, we have a Constitutional crisis; let‘s not quibble on that point.)

But it's easy to overlook the benefits (if that is the word) of all of this – the long-term “lessons learned” for anyone with a modicum of awareness and reasoning power.  One is that journalism is dead – and has been for quite a while.  Another is that “comedy” is dead, as is “entertainment” in general.  Another is that the “Deep State” really exists and that it can exert a considerable amount of influence through sheer inertia (and there's nothing like the federal government when it comes to inertia; they pretty much invented it).  Another is that the Constitution is dead and buried, as is the rule of law.  (Regarding the latter, Robert Mueller’s rule of thumb seems to be “You show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”  In this he shares a view of “justice” with Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s top henchman.)  It has also become obvious that “separation of powers” is no more meaningful or reliable than a game of paper, stone, and scissors.

So in a sense it's refreshing – a relief in a way.  We can finally get down off our high horse of superiority (moral and otherwise) as a nation, society, and culture and admit that we're just slobs like everyone else – impulsive, delusional, greedy, wrathful slobs.  Now the rest of the world, which has been saying for decades that we're no better than they are, can claim vindication.

But both within that context and in a broader sense, it now seems that what we fancifully term “democracy” has been fatally damaged.  Our election process, which has always been considered a pillar of our supposedly democratic system, has been called into question regarding its integrity and its vulnerability to influences both internal and external.  Starting with primary campaigns and extending through the election campaign to the result, and the reaction to that result, the whole thing seems about as substantial as a decaying scarecrow dressed in rags that is buffeted about by anything that comes along, from a gale down to the mildest zephyr.  This is, in fact, fodder for the argument not just that we need to “clean up” the election process, but that we should do away with elections altogether, at least at the national level.  If the system is that vulnerable, in other words, it might be better to do away with it and simply appoint a committee of wise men (assuming there are enough to form a committee) to appoint a president... or, perhaps, to simply eliminate the office altogether.  (But then what would replace it?  I supposed we could create some sort of figurehead post that has no real power, and let the government pretty much run itself.  Oh, wait – that's what we have now.  But it does seem to be working, after a fashion.  Let's give the Deep State that much credit, at least.)

Once in every generation an event occurs that is widely described as a “loss of innocence” for American society.  The Vietnam war, especially when lumped in with Watergate, is one example.  Then we had 9/11.  And now we have the Trump debacle – and it's becoming more clear, with each passing day, how it will end, even though specific details have yet to be worked out.  And along with each loss of innocence there is the general understanding that now we've learned our lesson:  “Never again!”  And yet we invariably wake up the next morning, wide-eyed and virginal like Doris Day, with nary a hangover, and no memory, and blunder at full speed into the next folly.  So no, we don't learn, and yet each experience deposits another layer of corrosion, demoralization, and decay.  We've never recovered from Vietnam, and we're still fighting the “War on Terror” that began in earnest on 9/11... and I don't expect that we'll recover from the Trump Era either; we will be permanently scarred as a nation and a society.  And it's not just because of the “lessons learned” cited above.

There is nothing new about the idea that we are not masters of our own fate (socially, economically, and politically) – that there are things -- people and powers, unseen and nameless (and, needless to say, unelected) -- who are really in charge.  And by this we mean not in total and complete charge of everything down to the gum machine at the corner convenience store, but everything that counts.  And there is also the idea – equally as old – that these controlling elements, whoever and whatever they are, are not confined to nations, but are international, i.e. global, in their reach and in their concerns.  And those divisions and distinctions (nation, race, creed, ethnicity, etc. -- now including gender) that mean so much to us mean little or nothing to them – that they are, if anything, an annoyance and something that would it be well to get rid of. 

These are age-old suspicions and the basis for what are derided as “conspiracy theories” (as opposed to the endless stream of propaganda put out by the Regime, which we are expected to believe without questioning or hesitation).  Well, yes – we are talking about conspiracies, and we are also talking about "theories" insofar as solid and conclusive data are hard to come by.  But in most cases, the facts we do have, plus the ability to link them up in a logical way, plus plain common sense, are sufficient to come up with at least a tentative model as to what is going on – who's in charge (or, at the very least, who isn't), how things are really done, and perhaps even the motives of the ruling elite (assuming they go beyond simply raw power and money – which is an assumption that may not always be justified).  And of course there is the natural human need for coherence – for structure – for evidence of an orderly universe.  No one wants to live in a state of perpetual chaos – that would be a symptom of severe mental illness, and the last time I checked there weren't that many people who relished being in such a chronic state.  (The last hippie who relished that life style was recently seen wandering aimlessly through the forest near Eureka Springs, Arkansas.)  So we attempt to impose order – and that drive to impose order can be given credit for all sorts of things... like civilization itself, philosophy, economics, science, and, yes, politics.  The difference, perhaps, is that politics usually amounts to an attempt by one person or group to impose their notion of “order” on everyone else – witness The New Order of the Third Reich, and Bush I's New World Order (how's that coming along, by the way?).  Not to mention the words “Novus Ordo Seclorum” which appear on the dollar bill – a currency being, among other things, a sign and symbol of an ordered economy. 

Another way of looking at it is that conspiracy theories, so-called, thrive on incomplete information -- missing data and information that is regarded as unreliable or manipulative -- propaganda, in other words.  If we knew all there was to know about a given event, there would be no need for a theory, “conspiracy” or otherwise.  If an event just comes out of the blue -- seemingly random -- then it’s hard to know where to begin in terms of developing an explanation or theory.  (Witness the frequency with which crimes are committed “for no reason” -- at least for no reason that anyone can discern, except perhaps for the perpetrator, and if he’s dead it’s pretty much a lost cause.)  So, basically, conspiracy theories grow and thrive in a sort of gray area of information -- just enough but not too much.  In this they are not unlike scientific theories, which attempt to fill in some sort of structure when all available data have been exhausted.  (Note, by the way, that Evolution is still technically a theory, although it is almost universally marketed as fact, or as “settled science”.  But I digress… )

So there is nothing new or novel about a desire for order – for structure, even in everyday life.  (See what happens when the buses, trains, and airlines don't run on time.  People get upset.  Things that seemed reliable now seem out of control and chaotic.)  Likewise, there is nothing new or novel about the puzzlement and dismay that occur when orderly existence is threatened or disrupted.  The difference is that whereas some people accept disruption and chaos with resignation, the way they would accept a natural disaster, there is an alternative point of view that contends that disruption and chaos are, far from random and unpredictable, nearly always part of a plan – that they are not accidents but are imposed on us by higher powers for their own purposes.  And we see evidence – usually revealed far after the fact – that things like stock market “crashes”, depressions, recessions, inflation, etc. are not universally negative – that they benefit some people... some quite handsomely.  Then the question arises, were those who benefited just lucky?  But you take a look at who they are and the positions of power they occupy, and you have to imagine that the notion that the event in question was entirely accidental and unpredictable is far more fanciful than the notion that it was, at least in large part, part of a plan, or strategy, or conspiracy.

What I'm saying is that so-called “conspiracy theories” are far from unreasonable, despite the criticism heaped on them by tools of the Regime.  But if you accept that, the question remains, what does it have to do with events of the day, i.e. the Trump maelstrom?  Well, what would it look like if those in charge – call them the Regime, or cabal, or ruling elite --  decided that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump should never have been elected president, he shouldn't have been allowed to take office, and now that he has it's vitally important to remove him from office as soon as possible?  Skipping over the question of motive here, as important as it is – what would the result of said decision be?  You would expect anyone who was, either knowingly or unknowingly, working for the Regime to spend every waking hour participating, in some way, in the effort to depose Donald Trump.  Furthermore, you would expect them to work together and cooperate in a remarkable way – to establish a kind of symbiosis that puts all previous political alliances to shame.  And – this is key – you would expect them to, day after day, week after week, and month after month all appear to be working off the same script – to not only be doing the same things but saying the same things, word for word in many cases.  That’s what one would expect, and -- lo and behold! -- that’s exactly what’s happening.  

But now we move on to a more subtle matter.  Given that there are millions -- tens of millions -- of people actively and vociferously opposed to Donald Trump and all of his works... and that a goodly number of them are willing to take time off work (assuming they have jobs, which may be a stretch) to fill the streets, chant, protest, carry signs, and so on... are they all doing what they're doing for the same reasons?  By which I mean, for the reasons they think, because my theory is that they are all, ultimately, working for the same entity, namely the Regime, which, among many things, is profoundly globalist in its origin and purpose, and perceives Trump as an existential enemy of globalism -- although, frankly, you‘d never know it from his foreign policy.  And after all, mobs are, almost by definition, mindless and acting primarily on the basis of impulse and mass hysteria -- if not a simple desire to escape the boredom and dreariness of their existence.  And yet they are invariably equipped -- by someone -- with tools like signs, banners, or -- in more extreme cases -- weapons.  And they are encouraged and coached, by minor demagogues operating at street level, to mouth words -- to chant -- and especially to fit any notion they might have into that ubiquitous 11-syllable format (you know, the one that always begins “Hey hey, ho ho“).  And do they just materialize spontaneously wherever the focus of that day's protests is?  Far from it -- they are marched, bused, even flown in for the occasion.  Who organizes all of that?  Who pays for it?  In some cases, we know the answers; in others it's as mysterious as those "large character posters" that used to appear on walls in Maoist China.  There is a point beyond which -- if one gets past those leading the chants and those standing on a wall with a bullhorn -- the controlling element becomes invisible... just fades into the mist.

So we have, basically, the questions of what motivates these people subjectively (i.e. in their own opinion), what motivates them objectively (i.e., the real, deeper motivation, but still personal), and then who is exploiting them, and what is their motivation?  Let's admit that most of the people who take to the street on a regular basis to protest the existence of Donald Trump are not deep thinkers.  They've been fed a laundry list of things to hate about Donald Trump -- but the fact that they so readily cling to it and adopt it as their own says a lot about their fears, insecurities, paranoia, and desperate need for social approval -- for belonging.  And believe me, their puppet masters in the ruling elite know about this; they are under no illusions as to the level of sophistication of the mob.  In fact, the last thing they would want is to have people actually start to think; much better to have them available to mindlessly chant slogans. 

But the question remains, what is the source of all of the -- at times almost demonic -- energy behind the "Resistance"?  It's not as if presidents and administrations have not, in the past, come under fire for any number of things, but it seems to me that there was always a grain of truth there somewhere.  In other words, the protesters basically knew what they were talking about, and the magnitude of the protests was reasonable given the magnitude of the problem.  We can say this about, for example, protests against the Vietnam war and civil rights marches.  But this time around, so much of the rhetoric seems totally out of proportion and unhinged from reality.  It is "full of sound and fury", but not much else. 

Now, if you surveyed a few of these protesters on any given day, and asked them if they were committed to globalism and protesting on behalf of elite globalists, most of them would probably give you a blank stare.  "No, it's because Trump is.... (insert insult of your choice)."  Or, "He's ruining everything" -- but what, specifically, they might be hard pressed to say.  Or, "He's destroying the country" -- OK, what part of the country is he destroying?  Or what aspect?  Or, "He's destroying democracy and introducing fascism" -- but the last time I checked people were still voting, and I've already discussed what a lousy job he's been doing if he's serious about being a fascist dictator.   

So it just doesn't add up, and what I suspect is that what I referred to above as objective motivation may provide at least part of the answer.  Because we are a deeply troubled, dysfunctional society on many levels, and that pathology both percolates up from the citizenry and trickles down and impacts them in their daily lives.  Whenever someone quotes that old chestnut "lives of quiet desperation", I have to say, whaddaya mean "quiet"?  We're getting noisier all the time, and desperate people naturally look to their leadership for either salvation or blame -- savior or scapegoat, this is the lot of the politician in our time (and probably any other time as well).  And even if the leader is a figurehead, he's still expected to perform those functions; the people who voted for him as a savior may turn against him and make him a scapegoat, and the people who didn't vote for him will declare him a scapegoat the instant he takes office (if not before).

At this point it bears mentioning that those whom everyone sees as the leaders of the opposition -- the high command, if you will -- are tools as well, and none more than the leader of the pack, Robert Mueller.  He stalks through the corridors of power daily, craggy as an Old West gunfighter (have you ever noticed that he’s always photographed from ground level, as if to emphasize both his physical and moral stature?), and clearly sees, as so many others do (James Comey, for one) that it’s his patriotic duty to rid the country of this boil… this tumor… this invasive alien life form named Donald Trump.  And the law and the Constitution won’t be allowed to get in the way!  And for that, he and his colleagues are willing to put everything on the line -- respect, reputation, career if need be.  So yes, they are making sacrifices, but they are also victims of the Regime, which cares not for their hallowed reputations or for anything else.  To the Regime, they are mere tools… operatives… middle men.  And expendable, as shown by the number who have fallen by the wayside, mourned by few, and undoubtedly with more to come. 

And again, the ruling elite -- the people who ultimately control the mob, and who control the visible high-level players -- don't fall for any of this.  They care not for the neurotic alienation of the mob, and they care not for the delusions and grandiosity of the middle men; they are not impacted by mere human foibles.  A cooler-headed bunch cannot be found anywhere else on the planet.  (Think of them as a cross between Swiss bankers and robots, and you’ll be getting a bit closer to the truth.)  All that matters is the agenda, and they will do whatever it takes to further it... and being master manipulators (if they weren't, they wouldn't be in the position they're in) they will exploit any sort of weakness, and in fact aggravate it and amplify it in pursuit of their goals.  So yes, the mob is their victim, and if Trump becomes their victim as well the mob will rejoice because they will see it as their personal victory.  But the real victory will belong to the elite, and the mob will be in for some unpleasant surprises when the real agenda starts to unfold.  Who will provide the signs, slogans, and "talking points" then?