Life Before Trump

We are all so mesmerized these days by the events unfolding before our eyes that we find it hard to remember, or even imagine, that there was any time before the Trump Era – before that fateful ride down the escalator. But that time did exist, and it paved the way, in ways that are only now starting to be revealed, for not only current events but for a long time to come – possibly right up the end of the United States as a republic. (Note that I said “as a republic”, not necessarily the end of the United States. I can imagine – as many others apparently can – a time when there will be a country called the United States, but it will no longer be a republic, or a democracy, or anything else resembling those concepts. Many people, in fact, believe that we've already reached that point – or did reach it, years or even decades ago. But that's too broad a topic for the present, so I will press on.)

Consider, for a moment, what has already been revealed not only by numerous investigations and in numerous reports, but also (wittingly or otherwise) by the media, as well as by our own eyes and ears. The opposition against Trump and his administration did not appear overnight like some gigantic fungus in the depths of the forest. The groundwork had been laid for a long time, although the process did accelerate considerably under the last administration. One can argue all day and into the night about the when, the why, and the who, but the hard fact is that the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence community, and the military had been thoroughly politicized prior to the start of the 2016 campaign. Government agencies and entities that, in order to function as originally intended, should be as apolitical as possible had been packed with people loyal to the liberal/progressive program, to the Democrats, most recently to the Obama administration, and – above all – to the globalists and globalism. Call it preemptive... call it “insurance”... whatever, the point is that the dice were already loaded in favor of Hillary Clinton (not least, as became known, by the Democratic Party) and against whomever the Republicans managed to nominate. And the most casual survey of the political landscape at that time would have assured anyone on the liberal/Democratic/progressive side that there was no one out there with any chance of beating Hillary. So the final touches – the politicization of those few parts of the government that had not already been politicized by prior administrations was not just about getting Hillary elected; it was a way of policing up the battlefield... consolidating... establishing a future groundwork or structure – a way of solidifying the Deep State in such a thorough way that it could never be defeated or seriously threatened.

So the Deep State was already in place, and politicized, and monolithic on June 16, 2015 – secure in the knowledge that everything was under control, that another one of their own would soon be president, and that there would be a seamless transition between the Obama and Clinton II administrations.

But it goes deeper than that. The solidification of the Deep State was intended to defeat any future Republican (not to mention third-party) candidate for the presidency – and to help defeat Republican candidates for lesser offices as well. And this is not to say that old-fashioned chicanery was no longer in the toolbox; there would always be (as we saw in liberal strongholds like Florida and California) attempts to steal votes, suppress opposition votes, create favorable votes out of thin air – all the old tricks. And the Ministry of Propaganda (AKA the mainstream media) would be running at full speed as well, as would other “agents of influence” like the “entertainment” industry, academia, and social media. (Please remember that the totalitarian impulse is not compatible with close races. Overkill is the method of choice, and total defeat of the opposition is the goal.)

And then we have the state of the Republican Party at the time, which was manifesting all of its least savory traits – passivity, lack of energy, lack of charisma, lack of principles, being easily intimidated and cowed, and generally unable to come up with anything in the way of arguments other than “we're almost as compassionate as the Democrats”. So the Obama administration ran roughshod over the Republicans in an overt, public fashion, and also set up a structure – an insurance policy like unto none before – that would keep the Republicans out of the White House forever. They were winning on both overt and covert levels, in other words... and all was well, until...

Until the fateful escalator ride. And this Trump guy was clearly not just another candidate – another lukewarm body spilling out of the Republican clown car. And enough people in the Obama administration noticed this and realized that, to quote Chris Berman, “He! Could! Go! All! The! Way!” So the structures and people who were already in place to act as insurance, and as agents of gradual change, went into instant overdrive – All hands on deck! – Condition red! – and everything that has happened since then is the result. And it wasn't just that Trump was a Republican (albeit the least typical Republican ever, but he did run on their ticket for lack of a more viable option – not caring to repeat Ross Perot's mistake), but that he came right out and challenged the Deep State (although few called it that at the time) and its collaborators and facilitators in and out of government. In other words, he challenged the Establishment – the ruling elite – the status quo – pretty much everybody who was anybody. And yes, it was, and remains, an “existential threat” as long as he's in office, which is why the effort to get rid of him has not flagged. They have too much to lose – everything to lose, in fact, since political power is the be-all and end-all of their existence. Some people can take or leave politics, but not these people; for them it's like air, water, sustenance, and whole blood rolled into one; it's their life force, without which they would perish.

So... anyone who thinks the Deep State erupted out of nothing and out of nowhere, somehow magically appearing, full-blown, on Escalator Day, is mistaken. It was there, it was fully formed, armed and ready. The networks were in place, as were the power structures and the principal actors. But it was expecting to operate, as it had in the past, in a subversive, subtle fashion – not in a way so obvious and blatant that the most feeble-minded among the electorate could detect it. But Trump changed all that. He forced their hand, and over the ensuing 4 ½ years much of the weaponry, many of the tricks, much of the corruption and deceit has been exposed – partly voluntarily but mostly involuntarily. And there is more to come! And yet – amazingly enough – the world would know nothing of this if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016. It would all be there, fully operational, but entirely hidden. But as things stand, the denizens of the Deep State have, out of sheer necessity, appeared by the score before Congressional committees, have stood up and proudly listed their credentials and achievements, and have admitted, without the slightest hint of shame, regret, or self-doubt, that each of them is a single cell of a gigantic organism, and that organism is the power center – the only real power center – in the government – a fourth branch, in effect, compared to which the three branches we're all familiar with are a sham and a facade. They have made it abundantly clear that when it comes to a question of their programs, attitudes, and opinions vs. those of the president who is their nominal boss, it is their way or the highway (for Trump, in this case). They are, after all, the experts... they have the experience, the training, the networks, and the class consciousness necessary to run the country, and Donald Trump does not. (And, in fact, no president does, including Democrats.)

And it's this realization, more than anything else, that has eroded “trust in government” to the point where it no longer exists among significant portions of the citizenry. And this should be troubling, given our pretensions to honest, open, and above-board government... to democracy (however defined)... to “a government of, by, and for the people”. Now we see what we may have just suspected up until now (and yes, that includes “conspiracy theories” cherished by “right-wing nuts”) -- that there are “the people”, and there is government – but that the power relationship only goes in one direction – that we are no longer led by leaders, but ruled by rulers. And some, having a historical perspective and lacking protective naivete about human nature, will say that this is a natural trajectory... that it is -- tragically, perhaps, but inevitably -- what always happens to republics, democracies, governments of the people, etc. in the long run – that there is a gradual shift in power, an erosion of the rule of law, and a gradual takeover by the rich, the cynical, and the unprincipled. It's as if to say, why were we kidding ourselves that we were so different – that we were the first society in human history that could pull it off? But human nature rules in the long run, and we are living in that long run right now (despite John Maynard Keynes, in the long run we're not all dead). And of course, as I've pointed out previously, no one wants to live in “history”; war, revolution, turmoil, etc. are all well and good as long as they don't happen during my time – leave it to others (our ancestors or descendants) to deal with it. And this is especially true if current events all seem to reflect a decline – defeat and disappointment – the next generation not living as well as the previous one, etc. Then we see a rise in nostalgia, like what is happening in our time (all across the political spectrum, actually). But along with it comes a rise in optimism and a simultaneous rise in pessimism, depending on where one stands on the political spectrum. You can be both nostalgic and optimistic, or both nostalgic and pessimistic, and there are plenty of examples of each.

At this point, to be perfectly fair I have to give credit to the opposition, by which I mean the sum total of liberals/Democrats/progressives + the Deep State and its facilitators + popular culture + the media. They all describe Trump and his election as an “anomaly”, and they're right – it is. And it's an anomaly for many reasons. They will say that he shouldn't have been elected (or, in a delusional way, following Hillary Clinton's lead, that he wasn't elected, that he just somehow managed to sneak into the White House under cover of night) because... well, just because. And because he's unsavory in every way... and an outsider... and a businessman... and rich... and everything a normal, acceptable candidate is not. He never buttons his coat, and sits in chairs like some juvenile delinquent in the principal's office. And then there's the fact that his base – the people who elected him – the “deplorables” (and we have to thank Hillary Clinton for etching that term of derision into the lexicon of American politics for perpetuity, especially since it has now become a badge of honor) – were, and are, people who really shouldn't have any say in things, least of all presidential elections, because the truth is not in them. Besides which, they are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. etc. And who knew there were so many of them? – that's the really galling thing. I mean, if the only people who voted for Trump in 2016 had been card-carrying KKK members, or Proud Boys, or whoever, we wouldn't have had this to deal with. But when there are more white supremacists in the local family restaurant on Saturday morning than there are ex-Nazis in Paraguay, drastic measures are in order.

That's the mind set. And you can be certain that they won't make the same mistake again – i.e. they won't let any Republican with two gonads to rub together anywhere near the primaries or the election. Way too chancy. The people who laughed at Trump on Escalator Day and were laughing at him right up to Election Night have learned their lesson: Assume nothing, infiltrate everything, leave nothing to chance, and do whatever is necessary. No more mumbling to your girlfriend on e-mail about “insurance”, no – it's time to get out the WMDs.

This is why the election of 2020 is going to be so interesting (it already is, actually), no matter which hapless Democrat gets nominated and no matter who winds up running on the Republican ticket. (There is a Republican convention, remember – Trump isn't going to be a shoo-in for the nomination even assuming he makes it up to that point.) No, what will be interesting is that the Deep State and all of its allies, once unmasked, will see no point in holding back. They have been exposed now, by their own doing... they are out in the open and blatant... and there is no sense trying to scurry back under cover. So they will be raining fire and brimstone down on the Republican candidate, no matter who he or she is – partly because it's what they do, partly to take care of people who haven't already learned their lesson by seeing what they've done, and are doing, to Trump, and partly as a warning to the Republican Party that if they want to survive at all they need to be content with second-class citizenship in perpetuity. In other words, if they are content to be wallflowers and strap-hangers, fine – but don't start getting any ideas about having any real influence, because what is happening to Trump and his associates can happen to you too, under cover of night and in broad daylight. You can wind up in jail for just existing; this has to have a, let's say, chilling effect on any sort of political assertiveness, and on expressing any opinions at all that are at odds with those of the ruling elite.

There's a thin line, I suppose, between realism and pessimism. In these times they can seem to be pretty much the same thing, and maybe they are. The problems facing whoever's in charge now or in the future are so enormous, and so intractable, that to expect anything other than frustration and failure is to show a high level of delusion. Once again, history has caught up with us, as has human nature. American-style democracy may soon go the way of The New Soviet Man, or of the Ubermensch and the Master Race. And we've had a pretty good run of it, quite frankly – certainly longer than the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, which had flaws that were too blatant from the start. We were, if you will, sustainable – but not indefinitely. This Republic was conceived by highly-intelligent, well-educated, and certainly far from ignorant men who were under few illusions about human nature. It would be interesting to find out how long they expected it to last before succumbing to degeneration and decay; who knows, they might be surprised it has lasted this long, even if in vestigial form. But they were, after all, men of ideas, and ideas only work if they are workable, and if there is sufficient political will to make them work. So again, this was the case for quite a while – way longer than the French Revolution which was similar in many ways. But that revolution was in 1789 and by 1804 they had an emperor, and in between they had a Reign of Terror and other unpleasantries. (And we were their principal inspiration, by the way – don't forget that.)

Well, we have yet to crown an emperor, although we came close in the case of FDR. Someone once joked that the American system is an odd one – it's a monarchy where we elect a new king every 4 (or 8) years. But that would be to unduly belittle monarchies, some of which have lasted for centuries if not millennia. Maybe what works is not always what's best from the point of view of poly-sci idealism.

To sum up, whatever was put in place over time that has manifested itself in the opposition is not going to go away. It won't go away when Trump leaves office, and it won't go away if a Democrat becomes president. It's a permanent fixture, and some will celebrate this fact, the way one-party rule is celebrated by fans of totalitarian regimes. Competing parties? Debate? Compromise? Way too messy. Much better to just have a single party, and a single party leader – a strongman who commands – demands – obedience from all of his faithful subjects. We forget that this is as strong an impulse – every bit as much as part of human nature – as notions of “freedom”, democracy, populism, etc. And it's a highly cultural phenomenon. The Russians, for example, apparently cannot get along without a strongman in charge; democracy is just not in their blood. The Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, are the true “people's republics”, whose leaders are so low-profile that no one knows who they are. (Do you? I certainly don't.) We have European monarchies that are, operationally, more democratic than most alleged democracies or republics. Such are the paradoxes when it comes to governments.

At this particular time in our history it's the liberals/Democrats/progressives who are all in favor of the all-powerful state, the regulatory state, totalitarianism, and what amounts to one-party rule. They seem to forget what happened to the Old Bolsheviks who, once they had outlived their usefulness, were hunted down by Stalin's henchmen and summarily shot. Their problem? They were rebels and nonconformists by nature, and too full of ideas, and those ideas started to clash with the desires of the more pragmatic (i.e., cynical) types who were rapidly filling the positions of power. There will always be revolutionaries like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who will be at the front of the parade, waving a red flag and playing an accordion. But the funny thing is that they very seldom wind up in charge. Their position is like unto that of the point man in a military operation – vital, but with low life expectancy. Sometimes they wind up as cannon fodder for the very entities that they thought were on their side, as happened to the Red Guard in China. The revolution is cannibalistic; as has been said, it always devours its own. But there's no sense in warning them, because they never listen.

So even the Deep State may not always be the property of today's “opposition”; it has its own priorities, its own needs, and its own survival strategies. One point to remember is that the Deep State is motivated solely by its need to survive and expand; otherwise it is as unprincipled, amoral, and unfeeling as a malignant tumor. It is, if you will, reptilian in nature – without compassion and unappealing except to those who see it as a pathway to power. So Democrats who celebrate the Deep State and consider it their power base might have to think again some day – but by then it will be too late. They are, after all, expendable. And the Deep State, because it's a thing and not a person, has staying power well beyond the life span of any one individual. One may even say that it is given birth by war, and nourished by conflict and strife; and if this is the case, its origins followed very closely on the origins of the Republic.

Now, maybe all of this is fine with you. Maybe living under the watchful eye of Big Brother (as currently manifested in the social media, communications, and the intelligence community) is your idea of the good life. If so, then you're quite fortunate, because you're already living in a world tailored to your tastes, and about to live in a world even more so. This will be a cause for celebration. For certain other people, however, this is not the ideal; it's not what they voted for and it's not the world they want to live in. And – most importantly – they're not going away. They have become visible, they have an identity and cohesiveness that's every bit a match for the opposition. The clouds have lifted, and we now, at long last, see that there are two Americas (and maybe more than two), two different world views... two different worlds, in effect. Those worlds are colliding now, in a way that is more open and obvious than ever. The American public is now thoroughly politicized; no one is neutral, no one is “undecided”. We are all “woke”, but in different and opposing ways. (Did you think “wokeness” was limited to just one end of the political scale? Think again. If it's a good thing for one group, then it's a good thing for other groups as well. Otherwise, it's just another word for tyranny.)

I, for one, think the current flood of revelations is a good thing – as stressful, time-consuming, and energy-consuming as it may be. The marketplace of ideas has finally come to pass as somewhere everyone can shop, not just activists and intellectuals. And who knows, if enough people become interested in politics they might also become interested in philosophy; wouldn't that be something! Because politics is, after all, a manifestation of ethics, which, in turn, is a manifestation of philosophy, which, in turn, is a manifestation of our view of man and mankind – of his origins, nature, and ultimate fate.

The downside, of course, is we have to live in a time of war – a war of words, at least. That, and pretty much every negative emotion in the book – which tends to swamp and distract from everything else, things that might be more worthwhile to the individual and, in the long run, to society. But it's a rite of passage that we have to go through – not necessarily in every generation but often enough. Societies re-define themselves now and then, at least on the political and social level if not on the deeper levels of faith, tradition, and custom. Post-empire England is still England. Post-Soviet Russia is still Russia. Post-Maoist China is still China. And so on. (The post-Confederate South is still the South, much to the dismay of non-Southerners.) Of course those were more coherent cultures to begin with, whereas we take great pride in our “diversity”. But that's also our weakness. What it means is that we lack the connective tissue needed to weather storms such as the present one, and come out in one piece rather than in shambles – divided, therefore ready to be conquered. The United States has become disunited, and the great American melting pot turns out to be more of a stew pot. So yes, once this crisis is past we may find that we are no longer the same, even on levels we always thought were permanent and solid. We may, indeed, descend to a more primitive condition of warring tribes. (It's already happening in our large cities.) If so, it will take a government even more powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing than the one we have now to keep things together – if that's even considered worthwhile. And it may not be, as witness the increasing incidence of anarchy and “no-go zones” in our large cities. The globalists of this world don't want a strong United States with any sort of national pride; they want a muscular but dim-witted and compliant servant to do their bidding – and they already have it to some extent, but it's likely to become even more so in the future.

And once again, if this is OK with you, then fine. Go ahead and cast your lot with the globalists and see how satisfying it is. But what does it take to completely suppress all needs and desires for the eternal verities – home and hearth, family, pride in work, faith, sense of place, and, yes, ethnic and racial identity as a source of cohesion and loyalty rather than a mere political weapon? These are signs of the Natural Man, whereas loyalty to globalism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism is a sign of – what? I would call it despair. Of giving up, of being less than fully human. Of basically opting out of the human race in favor of a subhuman existence. But it's the sort of despair that will not confine itself to the individual. People who have lost whatever it is that makes them human will waste no time before taking the same thing away from others, by persuasion or by force. The impulse to share the misery and the fear is something we see every day and everywhere in the public forum. It is a sign of weakness and vulnerability. It indicates that we have been conquered from within – and a people that is conquered from within will soon be conquered from without.

Corollary: The Deep State = The Regulatory State = The Surveillance State = The Perpetual Warfare State.

These are four heads of the same beast. They are not identical, but are highly interdependent and symbiotic. No one of them can operate effectively without the others. For example:

• The Deep State depends as much on regulations as on laws for its existence. Laws merely provide the broad outlines; they have to be filled in by regulations. This is why Trump's efforts to reduce the number of regulations are seen as such a threat.
• Regulations are designed primarily to regulate, control, and restrict the activities of the citizenry. Without surveillance, it would be difficult to assess whether regulations were being adhered to.
• Perpetual warfare requires the Deep State for implementation, and surveillance in order to insure that the citizenry are “with the program” and are not developing an aversion to perpetual war.
• Since the Deep State and the Perpetual Warfare State are inseparable, it's foolish to be against “big government” but in favor of war, as the neocons are.  War is impossible without the Deep State, a highly-regulated economy and industrial base, and surveillance.  Every war we've ever fought shows this, and yet there are people who don't believe that's it's necessarily the case.
• It's also foolish to protest against surveillance but be in favor of big government. Big government naturally gives rise to surveillance as a means of determining the level of cooperation of the citizenry. And, the Surveillance State, over time, becomes an increasingly large portion of the Deep State. One reason the Soviet Union collapsed is that half the citizens were employed spying on the other half.

There are many more interconnections. The point is that it is, ultimately, all one thing, so we each have a choice – we can be for all of them or none of them. Anything else is irrational, illogical, and a symptom of delusional thinking.