20+ for 2020 (and still counting)

Why are there so many declared Democratic candidates for president, with a year and a half until the 2020 election? One obvious answer is the generation gap – the Democratic establishment or old guard, AKA old white guys, vs. the wildly diverse Young Turks, who are, besides not being senior citizens, also arguably somewhat to the left of the old timers (though not enough to make a difference for any genuinely conservative voter). But that doesn't explain the sheer numbers, and the number of them who are not just grass-roots, but, basically, unknown, having either never having held elective office or having, at best, been at one time a member of some small-town water and sewage board.

In any country where, as it used to be said, “any boy born in a log cabin can grow up to be president of the United States” – and one has to substitute “girl or someone of indeterminate or undeclared gender” for “boy”, even if we leave the log cabin part in just for old times' sake – although “trailer” might be more apropos to the present day... it seems that people are starting to really take it seriously, as in: “If anyone can be president, then that includes me!” The impossible dream is no longer impossible, nor is it a dream – although, to look at some of these candidates, it might turn out to be a nightmare for everyone else.

But that's not enough to explain the 20+. It has to be based on the premise – held by everyone in the Democratic party, candidate or not – that anyone can beat Trump. Anyone! You wouldn't even have to be human! A yellow dog could do it! A cockroach! An amoeba! An inanimate object like Jeb Bush! So... with this premise, that being nominated by the Democratic Party is equivalent to being elected president, everyone with time on their hands is jumping into the race, because, well, what have they got to lose? Even if some other Democrat is nominated, at least a Democrat will still win... and maybe the sheer force of all those candidates will, in some way, help to insure success (image of countless sperm cells besieging an egg cell – one of them has to succeed, and the others ought to be glad to help out, and if they aren't, well, they just have a bad attitude, that's all).

But oh boy, here we go again with the “inevitability” thing. Can memories possibly be so short? A mere three years ago, Hillary was already picking out water-repellent wallpaper for Bill's White House playroom, not only assured of the nomination but also assured of victory in November. Bernie Sanders thought he was a contender, but the fix was in. And meanwhile, Donald Trump was already starting to knock off other Republican hopefuls like tenpins (except that tenpins generally have more sense).

The great thing about our political system is... no, it's not what you think, or what most people think. It's the White House. I mean, when leaders in many foreign countries take office, it's still kind of ambiguous, like, what do they really do (the term “ceremonial” comes up quite often)? And how much power do they really have, where do they live, how readily can they be thrown out of office, how do your pronounce their name, etc. It all seems so tentative, in a sense... so fragile... so ephemeral. But in our country the winner gets to move into the White House! They, and no one else save spouse and minor children. Everyone else has to come begging “around the back”. The president gets the limo, and the helicopter, and Air Force One, and “Hail to the Chief”, and all the things fit for a king – because he is, in many ways, a king – elected, yes, but the beneficiary of an immediate windfall of power and privilege that monarchs of old could only have dreamed of. European royalty are mere birds in gilded cages by comparison. Why, the president of the United States can start a war single-handedly, at any time and in any place! It happens all the time. I call that real power. (The main reason European countries no longer start wars is they've forgotten how. It has nothing to do with the E.U., NATO, or the U.N.)

But if the White House is more than symbolic, it can also become a prison, as it clearly did in Tricky Dick's case toward the end... and as it keeps promising to do in Trump's case, except that he's no Tricky Dick. He doesn't make mealy-mouthed excuses while hunkered down behind his desk in the Oval Office; he stands up in broad daylight and shouts defiance at the opposition on a regular basis. And this, of course, just drives them to new heights of hysteria – as intended. He plays them like a Stradivarius, as the saying goes, and they fall for it every time. It's a beautiful thing.

Which is, of course, still another reason why everyone from the assistant dogcatcher in Ash Flat, Arkansas on up thinks they're more qualified to be president than Trump, and why they're all running, or intending to, or seriously thinking about it. It could get to the point where there are so many Democratic candidates that they each wind up with one vote, which is the one they cast for themselves. (Try that out on the Electoral College!)

But getting back to inevitability – in 2016 it was Trump, and his campaign promises, vs. Hillary, and her promise to have the third Obama term. And Trump had no help – not from the Republicans, and certainly not from the mainstream media, who were all working for Hillary along with Hollywood, late-night TV, social media, and Obama's Department of Justice, FBI, and CIA. I mean... you'd think with that sort of playing field Trump would have made out about as well as George McGovern did in 1972. And yet, the “deplorables” turned out in numbers much greater than anyone (maybe even Trump himself) could have imagined, and the Electoral College did its usual quaint thing by awarding the victory to Trump even though he fell short in the popular vote (still another energizing factor behind today's Democratic candidate frenzy). (One theory is that the Democratic strategists only counted residents of trailer parks, figuring that anyone who actually lived in a house would never vote for Trump.)

But here we are confronted with an enduring mystery. Let's assume, for the moment, that the Mueller investigation didn't find any Russia “collusion” because there wasn't any, and that Russian “interference” can't be proven to have changed a single vote. Of course, the shadow of suspicion has now fallen on the formerly-sainted Robert Mueller & Co. now that they've failed to live up to expectations; “Say it ain't so, Bob!” But in any case, when you consider... and, by the way, even if the Russians decided that hacking our election in 2016 was too much trouble, the 2018 election showed that elections can, in fact, be hacked, despite protestations from the likes of Barack Obama (that was before the 2016 election, note) – at least at the grass-roots level. Can you say “Orange County, California”, or “Broward County, Florida”?  All it takes is a handful of operatives in key election precincts; who was it who said, “The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” Oh, right – Joseph Stalin. But the key is to have “boots on the ground”; if it can't be done via the Internet, it has to be a labor-intensive local operation. This tends to favor what we might call “professional political operatives” (formerly known as ward heelers)... and guess which party can claim the bulk of these. Enough said!

And yet... and yet!... Trump won. And this is what has the opposition in a state of continuing meltdown; it's like a nightmare from which one cannot awaken. Because, when one considers all of the above, it's impossible. Not improbable, but impossible... unless! Unless, for some deep, darkly mysterious reason, “somebody” didn't want Hillary to win, and/or did want Trump to win. And that “somebody” (or those “somebodies”) had the ability to make it happen. And no, “Russia” is not the answer, because they were helping, or attempting to help, both sides in 2016, supposedly to sow chaos and disorder (and if that was their aim, then “mission accomplished”!).

But wait! Maybe that is the answer. Because who would benefit the most from the utter political and social chaos which has overtaken the U.S. since Trump declared his candidacy, and which has only gotten worse since he took office? To put it another way, who benefits when Americans are distracted, demoralized, bogged down with politics, fighting the culture war full-time, and – in many cases – subject to hysteria and near-psychosis? Why, our enemies, of course – which, in our time, means economic rivals most of all, but also political (on the global level) and military rivals.

Here's where it gets a bit more complicated. If we're talking about military rivals, it's pretty clear that the main contenders are Russia and China, with North Korea as a sidebar (because without China they are nothing). Economic rivals? China, of course... but we also have an uneasy relationship with Canada and Mexico (still NAFTA partners) as well as the European Union and other countries that are, in most other contexts, considered allies. (We're unlikely to run into a trade deficit problem with the Central African Republic very soon.) The thing is, with the massive economic interlinkages that characterize the world economy, it can be argued that “no country is an island”, and that what hurts one hurts all to some extent. (Prime example – a serious economic crisis in the U.S. is going to make China and some other countries wonder if holding on to more than one-third of our national debt is a good idea. Of course, dumping it all at once could be considered an act of war – and it would be, in a way. So they're stuck holding our debt, and we're stuck with them holding it, since it's never going to be “paid”, nor was it ever intended to be.)

Then how about political rivals? The most obvious are globalists of every stripe, but this includes plenty of entities right here in the U.S., not the least of which is much of Congress and the “deep state”, not to mention multi-national corporations. So am I saying that a large chunk of the government and other economic players are actually opposed to our national interest as a sovereign nation, in the long run? Yes. This is not to say they are “anti-American” exactly (at least they don't consciously think of themselves that way), but that they don't value the U.S. as a sovereign nation with the right to make its own economic and diplomatic decisions without having to grovel and beg permission from one or more international organizations. (Wouldn't you love to know who members of Congress have on speed dial – other than D.C. call girls, of course.) And if you don't think that uncontrolled “immigration” is an economic/political attack by the globalists, you haven't been paying attention. (This is the case in Europe as well.)

Those with globalist inclinations would much rather we be just one of many – nothing special, no big deal. Kumbaya and all that. And the more radical elements firmly believe that it's time for America to get its comeuppance – and whatever form this takes is OK, and they will be glad to help the process. Please note that this is the present-day version of the wreck of the European colonial powers after World War II (or World War I in Germany's case). But they were replaced by economic colonialists, and the result has been much worse for the victims than old-fashioned colonialism ever was (with the possible exception of the Belgian Congo).

And the current debate over “nationalism” exemplifies this – is “nationalism” the same as “fascism”, for example? The opposition says it is. Which means, by simple logical inference, that it's the same as “hate”, and racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. – you know the litany by now. The point being, while nationalism may be considered good for the country (although I would argue that old-fashioned patriotism is preferable), it is bad for the “world community” – which is why some formerly Iron Curtain countries are coming under so much criticism for reasserting their national (ethnic, religious) identity. (The fact that their captivity by the Soviet Empire is still so fresh in their minds might have something to do with it. Why trade one form of servitude for another? Is George Soros really preferable to Joseph Stalin? I suspect not.)

So the strategy, if you're a globalist puppeteer, is a delicate one – preserve the U.S. sufficiently to maintain us as the world's policeman (on behalf of the global elite) but suppress national pride and loyalty in all other respects, even if it saps morale. Which, I guess, is the modern version of the way the colonies of the European powers used to be tapped for “troops” who were sent to do the bidding of the colonials, not for any sort of benefit of their own country. And any sorts of stirrings (“the natives are getting restless”) were ruthlessly suppressed, the way stirrings of nationalism in the U.S. are instantly condemned by the opposition and its lackeys. One thing for certain – since Trump declared himself a nationalist, that term has fallen to the same level of disrepute as “fascist” or “Nazi”. So no matter what the term means (and it means many things to many people), it is suddenly forbidden to be used favorably in polite company (which, obviously, includes any E.U. confab).

It's like some sort of global cat-and-mouse game – keep America sick (but not on life support – more like a low-grade infection), demoralized, dependent, on the defensive, and subjugated on the one hand, but strong enough to provide a market based on consumer “needs”, and military muscle, on the other hand. Which means, by the way, that our so-called “world dominance” – our post-Cold War status as “the” superpower – is an illusion. We are much more like a dim-witted, stumbling giant controlled by unseen powers... and may, much sooner than anyone would like, become not much more than a beached whale, which is harvested for consumables while the skeleton is left to bleach in the sun. Of course, the global elite don't think much about sustainability, i.e. how long this situation can be maintained; that's someone else's problem, the way whoever let the Roman Empire slip away figured, well, how bad can it get in my own lifetime?

Imagine, if you will, a world without America. Poof, overnight, no USA at all, just a big vacant lot where we now stand – or, better still, a new sea caused by rising water levels due to global warming. The anti-America crowd would celebrate, no doubt – but Europe, and even China, might not be so sure. Israel would shit a brick. Russia, on the other hand, would consider it a golden opportunity. And for the global elite, well... they've been there before, and they always have another plan. But that's way down the road, if ever; how often do these “think tank” scenarios ever actually come to pass? Very seldom, thankfully. (Every day that goes by when most of us are still alive disproves the theories of another gaggle of “experts”. We have avoided utter annihilation at least a half dozen times since the 1960s.)

But – what about the Muslims? Have I forgotten about them? And if they are truly enemies and not just boogeymen, in what sense is this true? They have to be considered military enemies, since we find ourselves fighting them all across Africa and Asia, including in countries no American citizen has ever heard of (but even in those places, we're still fighting for “the American way of life”, don't forget that). But military rivals? A true threat in the military sense? Not so much. Our wars against Islam tend to be medium-tech for us and low-tech for them. If they fought the way we do, they wouldn't have a prayer – but when they fight their way (shades of the Viet Cong) they can do considerable damage.

So... is the Islamic world an economic rival? Hardly, unless you include the antics of the “oil-rich sheikhs”, and even their power is threatened by our increased domestic production of natural gas and oil.

OK then, what about politics, which means world politics in the case of Islam? As always, it's a matter not only of power and influence, but of “winning hearts and minds” (you know, that thing that we so spectacularly failed at in Vietnam). Islam is, at this point in world history, pretty much the only thing that can be described as “inspiring”, in the sense that it gets people excited, wins converts, and causes people to do radical and drastic things in the name of jihad – up to and including suicide bombing. Can anything comparable be said of Christianity, or of Judaism? Or of political systems like communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, etc.? Yes, those have adherents, but many of these have ulterior motives, and just try and find a “true believer” who is willing to lay it all on the line as did the Bolsheviks and Maoists of old. Most of the world, and especially the “Western world”, is largely populated by jaded cynics who are content with eating, drinking, and making merry. And this, as much as anything, helps to explain the Islamic tidal wave that is taking over much of Europe (and making inroads here and there in the U.S.). It turns out that faith and demographics can win out over any amount of technology, sophistication, and even tradition if it's not defended properly. Power centers in Europe at this point are either the fortresses of the ruling elite or the Islamic neighborhoods operating under sharia law; everyone else is caught in the middle and feeling helpless because they are, in fact, helpless.

But, as with solving a crime, you need to define means, motive, and opportunity. Our enemies have a complex mixture of motives, best exemplified by the globalist dilemma described above. The means are primarily military at this point, in the sense of threats and of the renewed arms race, which can also be seen as a technology race. But economic and diplomatic means are another matter, and they are being applied with due diligence, along with a steady stream of propaganda directed at the American public in order to convince them that “nationalism” is bad and Trump is worse, and that their only hope is to get rid of both and return to the open arms of the “international community” (in order to be exploited all the more). Consider that Hillary, and all of Trump's rivals for the 2016 nomination with the exception of Rand Paul, were, and remain, hard-core globalists, and you can see how uneven the power relationship is. And Trump himself seems ambivalent about globalism; he opposes it in some ways but embraces it in others, but clearly not enough to satisfy the hard core.

But again, how to define the threat Islam represents? If not military in the sense of absolute power, then what? Diplomatically, the world seems pretty much divided between Islam and non-Islam, with us and our so-called allies all on the non-Islam side. That should make things simple – as simple as the comfortably black-and-white world of the Cold War. And yet, we find ourselves “engaging”, to a greater or lesser degree, with much of the Islamic world, for military reasons above all, but also for diplomatic reasons, and economic as well (if you include oil). The only Islamic country that is considered a hard-core enemy is Iran (thanks largely to Jimmy Carter's titanic blundering), and yet every time we approach the brink of going in and teaching them a damn good lesson, we shrink back for some reason. Could it be that we really did learn a lesson of our own in Afghanistan and Iraq? One can only hope. (Of course, a standoff is a good way to keep the pot bubbling; a back burner is better than no burner at all. And if perpetual war is our goal, it makes sense to be at knife points with as many other countries or other entities as possible.)

The main impact of our ongoing struggles with Islam are, clearly, economic – and, to be more precise, economic in the sense of transferring wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive sector, i.e. war. But while that sector is non-productive, it is certainly not unprofitable, and this is a key factor in explaining why we persist in what appears to be a fool's mission. We forget that while the Cold War, for example, could be defended as a stand against communism, it also provided a rich source of funding for the war industries – not as much as an actual “hot” war, but enough to sustain them at a high level for many decades. The end of the Cold War may have been considered, by the average citizen, to be a good thing, but to the great “military-industrial complex” it was a disaster, and something had to be done, and fast! Enter the War on Islam (not an official term, but a better descriptor than all the official ones combined – especially the ones that include the word “freedom”).

In any case, the War on Islam is a major hemorrhage – a sucking chest wound – on our economy in general. Even if it does benefit the few, it harms the many. (This is true both domestically and at the global level.) And it is, in fact, impacting our economy severely enough to hasten our demise. So, it is shortsightedness, or part of an actual plan? Get us involved in endless wars which will only end when we are no longer able to wage them? Hard to say, and I think both factors are in play. And Congress, and the vast bulk of politicians, are mere tools in all of this; they aren't in on the plan, and there is no reason to let them in on it. So they have to be won over by a combination of threats and bribery, and probably some measure of pathetic and delusional “patriotism” (as opposed to the real thing, which, unlike most members of Congress, has red blood and functioning reproductive organs).

So... to finally get back to Trump vs. the Peanut Gallery – or, not quite yet. We should think a bit about what all of this meant, or may have meant, when it came to the 2016 election. The impossible candidate won, and the inevitable candidate lost – and no, it wasn't just about that silly old Electoral College. But was it only about the 63 million “deplorables”? (And that, by the way, is a lot of people – not quite a fifth of the total population at the time, but still quite a few for the Democrats to completely write off, not only in 2016 but potentially for a generation.) True enough, they came out of the woodwork to vote for Trump, and they came out in the right places to swing the electoral vote, but... again, with the forces arrayed against Trump, I still can't imagine how he won – or how he expects to win in 2020 by hanging on – oops, I mean “clinging” – to those same 63 million.

One way of summarizing the perennial “conspiracy” issue is this: Either you believe that there are unseen forces at work, or you don't. And as I've pointed out before, everyone is, on some level and perhaps only in the most trivial of cases, a “conspiracy theorist” (when people talk about socks that never reappear once they're put into the dryer, they're only half joking). And on the opposite end (psychologically at least) there are people who believe that everything is a conspiracy, and that the CIA spends every waking moment keeping track of their dull, boring lives. (This is also known as grandiose thinking, but is far from the only way it can come about.)

Thus, the natural response to Trump's not only unlikely but impossible victory in 2016 was that over half the citizenry turned, overnight, into conspiracy theorists, including those who had, up to that point, been perfectly satisfied with outward appearances and with the establishment's “narrative” about pretty much everything. So they began groping around, desperately, seeking an explanation, the way law enforcement officials are always looking for a “motive” when it comes to shootings. And sometimes there isn't one – sometimes things really do just happen. But this cannot possibly be in the case for 2016 – surely randomness is far too weak an explanation... no explanation at all, in fact, although it seems to satisfy those very same people whenever they are talking about evolution, which is a much bigger and more important phenomenon than American elections.

But if 2016 cannot be explained in any sort of reasonable way, what does this say about 2020 and everyone's expectations? Will it be a “normal” election (in which case Trump should lose in a landslide), or will it be another spectacular anomaly, the way 2016 was? This is what is, or should be, keeping the 20-plus new-and-old kids on the block awake at night. And if the sum total of our enemies, for any reason, want to continue to assault us – culturally, diplomatically, economically – what outcome will they prefer? What feeds more readily and efficiently into their agenda? The American public, once the very image of naive optimism and confidence, has had its dreams and delusions shattered, maybe once and for all, by the results of the 2016 election and by ensuing events, regardless of what “side” any given individual was on. Everyone is scandalized... everyone is disillusioned... everyone is dismayed, for many reasons... and everyone is “out on the street”, either literally or in spirit, gearing up for still another “mother of all battles” next year. So if the ruling elite at one time felt that an anesthetized American public was their best strategy, that has obviously been discarded in favor of something much more violent and stress-prone... which may mean that we have come to a moment of truth for our nation and society, the way so many other societies have come to a moment of truth, almost always unexpectedly (which makes it even more traumatic). It may be time to be either openly enslaved or equally openly discarded – and quite frankly, whoever winds up running in 2020, and however the citizens vote, is not going to make a bit of difference if the die is already cast. Trump, and the 20+ (or whatever the final figure is) may as well just be chaff in the wind if America's fate is sealed.

The Two-Year Presidency (Sad)

Trump seems to have upped his game since the election. No longer satisfied with saying, or doing, something offensive/outrageous/treasonous/impeachable (per the mainstream media's criteria) every week or so, he's now committing some sort of outrage not just daily, or hourly, but every five minutes! CNN can hardly keep up, even with 24 hours per day to work with. He's accused, tried, and convicted before even getting out of bed in the morning. (No word yet on whether he “tweets” from bed or from some other venue.) He is, in short, acting like someone who has nothing to lose – and that may well be. He is already fated to acquire lame-duck status the minute the next Congress is sworn in... but the easy impeachment that the Democrats have dreamed of for two years – their version of “visions of sugarplums” – may be out of reach. Not that he couldn't be impeached, but would the impeachment succeed? And that all hinges on whether certain Republican members of the Senate are willing to follow in Susan Collins' footsteps – and who's going to bet one way or the other on that?  Or they might feel that they are serving their party by betraying Trump, that being a better bet politically than serving Trump by betraying their party. There's no doubt about it; Trump has become a “long national nightmare” for the Republicans, who are never quite sure, on any given day, who to side with – Trump or the Republican mainstream (including the “never Trumpers”, who are holding their cards close to their chest these days).

So yes, the second half of Trump's administration, if it's even a half, promises to be a snooze fest in terms of legislation (and executive orders not immediately struck down by the judiciary – the 9^th Circuit being on 24-hour alert these days). And that may not be enough to satisfy a guy who brought his up-all-night, hyperactive, aggressive style down from New York City to sleepy, complacent, ossified Washington. Never has a man so blatantly “northeastern” had to deal with a vast array of opponents who are so “southern” – if not in the literal sense then in the sense of being satisfied with zero performance and maximum pay and benefits. The incompatibility has been there from the start, and it has only gotten worse over time. And make no mistake, the Republicans who have “come around” and grudgingly support Trump's initiatives have only done so for purely political reasons; they will turn on him in a New York minute (OK, a DC minute) if they think it's in their interests to do so.

No, Trump has been an alien life form in Washington from the beginning – they don't understand him, and I suspect he doesn't understand them either, at least not fully, although he's pretty good at making them jump. But the fact remains that he's not going to get a lot done between January 2019 and January 2021, and I suspect he knows it, and I also suspect he's thinking about what to do to fill up his time during those two years. (How much golf can you play in any given day?) And if he's smart (as I believe he is) he's also starting to get real about the chances of being re-nominated in 2020. And if he's already written that off as a possibility, it's less surprising that he's becoming more bare-knuckled than before. He hung in there on behalf of the Republican candidates who were interested in his support for the 2018 mid-terms, but now that those are accomplished (except for a few freakish exceptions in Florida and Georgia) he's able to reset his priorities (with or without Hillary's “reset” button). (And BTW, didn't I see that for sale on eBay the other day?)

So what to do? Well, he can continue to bait the mainstream media, the way one baits a cat with a laser pointer (that's Rush Limbaugh's metaphor). And he can – not a trivial consideration – allow the Mueller investigation to drag on, right up to January 2021, and thus continue to expose the utter moral bankruptcy and corruption of the opposition. This could, in fact, be his greatest long-term gift to the electorate. Long after the waters have converged and settled over all memory of his economic and diplomatic accomplishments, the abomination that is the Mueller investigation will remain a blotch on our history as a nation – and rightly so. At least there was a grain of truth – and perhaps more than a grain – to the Nixon (as senator) and McCarthy investigations, despite insurmountable stylistic difficulties; the Mueller farce will, in all probability, be remembered as the time when sheer fantasy, hysteria, and political interest took over large portions of the executive branch, particularly the FBI, the Justice Department, and the CIA. It would be hard to imagine anything more noteworthy from a historical point of view, and one can only hope that that the madness indeed comes to an end in January of 2021, and does not persist, as a chronic and fatal ailment, unto the end, for all intents and purposes, of the Republic.

To add a side note, based on one of the current Internet memes – namely the notion that Trump is using his position to enrich himself and his family. I've always said that the best person to elect to the presidency is someone who is already so rich that they can't be bribed – and I think Trump fits that description. If he had wanted to continue to make the big bucks, he would have stayed in New York, and ditto the rest of his family. They're probably giving up millions, if not billions, by mucking about in the fetid swamps of the Potomac – and yet there they are. And no, I can't figure it out either. Of course, if they were Democrats the answer would be that they merely want to serve their country, and selfish considerations don't come into play. (Right – tell it to the Clinton Family Foundation.)

So... where does this leave us? There are subtle signs that Trump may have already given up on 2020, despite all overt activities and claims otherwise. And yet I don't see him bailing out at any time prior to that; totally not his style. Even if he drops out in 2020, he'll no doubt declare victory – kind of like what we did when we left Korea in a stalemate.

But who knows, maybe he thinks he can get something done over the next two years after all; judicial appointments come to mind, as do military ventures which don't require the approval of Congress (which means pretty much all of them). If he bailed now it would leave the presidency in the hands of the saintly, white-haired Mike Pence, which would certainly give the Evangelicals cause for rejoicing (Israel is already perfectly happy with Trump). And Pence might well get nominated in 2020 – and he might well lose, for the same reason Ford, Mondale, and Gore lost; they were still infested with too many “cooties” from their previous bosses.

It's hard to imagine American politics being any more bizarre or grotesque than it is right now – but, as I said, we have 2 more years of Trump to go, and I suspect he has weapons he hasn't tried out yet. In any case, fatigue is setting in (for the citizenry, not him), and the question in 2020 will be, do we vote for one of the seemingly endless parade of colorless, boring Republican candidates – you know, the ones Trump managed to knock off, one by one, in 2016 -- or do we take a walk on the other wild side and vote for the likes of Bernie again, or maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? She is at least the voice of youth, whereas Bernie is stuck somewhere back in the 1960s with the rest of the Birkenstock/NPR/New Yorker crowd. Sometimes I think that the best way to deal with the fear of what the younger generation will “do to the country” is to just turn it over to them and see what happens. I mean, why wait until they're old enough to have sold out?

Epitaph for “The Trump Era” – A Fantasy in One Act

Trump isn't a lame duck yet, but he is in the sense that he only enjoys minority support in Congress, even though Republicans are in the majority. As a result, pretty much everything of significance that he's accomplished has been done by way of executive order, that most fragile of instruments. For what one president can do via executive order, another president can just as readily undo, as has been amply demonstrated. So one descriptor of The Trump Era will be the very brief half-life of his executive orders, and the lack of any significant and long-lasting legislation.

The Democrats already have an extensive laundry list of things that will be done immediately, upon their rightful (as they see it) reclaiming of the Executive Branch.  (Mark it on your calendars – the new Congress will be sworn in on January 3, 2019.)  Among them: Moving the United States Embassy back to Tel Aviv (or, more precisely, canceling its removal to Jerusalem, since that has not yet been fully accomplished); reaffirming the Paris Agreement; reaffirming our membership in the TPP; reaffirming our abject subordination to – oops, make that “alliance with” – the EU; and, of course, bringing the treaty with Iran back to life. (These constitute a big chunk of the globalists' list to Santa.) The Democrats will undo all that the Trump presidency (they may refer to it as a pseudo-presidency) has done, the way Trump has tried – with mixed success – to undo all that the Obama presidency did. Of course, two years of executive orders are easier to undo than eight years of legislation, but they will still give themselves credit for having rescued – just in the nick of time! – America, and civilization in general, from imminent doom.

The goal, in short, will be to make the Trump administration into, basically, a blank spot in history – an interregnum – a time when nothing happened because there was no one with the proper credentials to make it happen. In this they have already gotten plenty of practice, “1984”-style, in rewriting history and in brainwashing the citizenry. Look for the Trump presidency to be declared not only illegitimate, but null and void; it never happened, therefore everything that it allegedly accomplished never happened either. This will, by the way, cover things like Supreme Court appointments, which will likewise be declared null and void, as well as any of the pathetically few pieces of legislation Trump has signed, and any agreements with other countries, formal or informal – including “peace initiatives” (which are never worth much anyway, truth to tell).

Another way of putting it is that the ultimate goal is not, as is widely contended, the mere removal of Trump via impeachment, but the de-legitimizing of his entire administration. And if you want an example of “uncharted territory” that goes way beyond the Constitution and the wildest imaginings of its authors, get ready. Because if not only is Trump impeached, but his entire administration is as well, in effect – what are the consequences? His election is declared null and void, and the states are asked to re-submit their electoral votes minus those for Trump (or minus those for Trump that electors are unwilling to change). The result? Hillary! Yes – the Queen, Empress, and Suzerain of all the known Universe and beyond! She will be declared the winner and will take over the White House in triumph, while the Trumps make their way out of town in a broken-down jalopy like the Joads in “Grapes of Wrath" while being pelted with rotten eggs by the jubilant citizenry.  

Among many good questions – what will this do to our foreign relations, particularly to our image as a more or less stable, reliable country? I imagine it will, basically, render us a kind of renegade, or outlier, that is never to be trusted again. But this is not something that concerns the Resistance in the slightest, because they want nothing more than to see the U.S. rendered impotent and prostrate like a beached whale.

At the very least, it will be a reprise of the Obama era where we were squabbling with Israel but still, basically, following orders like an obstreperous child who's being pulled along by the ear. Perpetual war will remain perpetual, and our military budget will continue to dwarf those of all other countries combined. (Except for the Space Force, that's DOA.) These are, at least, the unchangeables – things you can count on no matter who's in charge. North Korea will once again be designated as a rogue state that is beyond the pale, because we need enemies as much as we need friends. As for Russia, well... that's going to be a bit trickier, but at least on the surface they will be declared personae non grata for the unpardonable sin of putting Trump into office. NATO, on the other hand, will be sent to a Vic Tanny gym in order to get totally “ripped”, after which we will establish a modern-day Maginot Line along the entire western border of Russia. (Not to be “provocative” or anything, of course.) And as for China – well, since Trump has been equivocal with regard to the Middle Kingdom, you can expect the next administration to follow suit. In diplomacy, the opposite of neutrality is more neutrality.

Domestically, well... the long knives will come out when any issue of religious freedom is involved (“Bake that damn cake or die!”); religiously-based organizations will increasingly have to choose between capitulating to government regulations (and thus staying in business) or adhering to their beliefs (and thus being forced out of business). ICE will, indeed, be abolished as will any hint of a wall or any other semblance of border security. The result will be a flood of undocumented immigrants that will pretty much overwhelm the Southwest and make serious inroads elsewhere. But hey, they all vote, right? (What the Regime seems to forget is that most of them are also Catholic; this could have unanticipated consequences down the road.) And what was quaintly termed “political correctness” will be turned into law – with the SPLC doing all the writing -- and enforced by a policing body modeled on the Gestapo. Things that won't change include the mainstream media and the technology sector, since they've been with the program from the start. But they may find that being on the winning side isn't all it's cracked up to be; recall that once the Russian revolution had been consolidated, one of the first groups to be shot or dragged off to the gulag were the “old Bolsheviks”.

And as for “academic freedom”, the Regime will be, more than ever, on the side of the total suppression of any non-liberal, non-progressive, non-totalitarian, non-collectivist points of view. “Conservatism”, if it survives at all, will have to go deep underground on college and university campuses, just as it will elsewhere in society. (Freedom of speech is already nonexistent on most campuses, but that has yet to be made official.)

But what about the non-mainstream media, and the non-Resistance social media? Well, the latter are already being dealt with, through censorship and suppression, by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and as to the former – well, remember the “hush Rush” (re: Rush Limbaugh) bill that didn't make it through Congress the first time around? Expect it be dug out of the grooveyard and infused with new life like Frankenstein's monster. (Plus, don't forget sponsor boycotts. And the re-weaponization of the IRS will have a profound effect as well.) “Net neutrality” will pave the way for all of this – the ultimate goal being that only one voice will be heard in the land, namely that of the Regime, disguised as Democrats, the Resistance, progressives, liberals, etc.

We also have to consider the things that, at least according to some measures, have significantly improved under Trump, for whatever reason. Will unemployment, especially among blacks and Hispanics, remain at an all-time low? Hardly. The Democrats depend on misery, and the more unemployment the more misery, so expect policy changes that will put us, with nary a bump, back into the Obama era economically. (Expect the next administration to be equally as adept as Obama's was at promoting a “post-racial” society.)

And how about the stock market? This raises, perhaps, the biggest mystery of our time, namely why Trump hasn't gotten more enthusiastic public support from big business – you know, those entities whose fates are daily traced by the fluctuations of the Dow. You'd think they'd be ecstatic, but apparently they aren't, and it may be because, other than being globalists in principle, they are better than anyone else at seeing the handwriting on the wall. They know the Trump Era is not long for this world, and so are bracing themselves and, you may be sure, engaging in a lot of profit-taking while the time is ripe. I think you can depend on the stock market to nose-dive the minute the Democrats win enough seats to take over Congress, and anyone who's the least bit smart will have gotten safely away from the deluge long before. The losers will be – as usual – the poor chumps who have their retirement money in mutual funds. It will be 2008 all over again, just in time for the 10^th anniversary – and not even with the help of sub-prime mortgages.

And as for the national debt – whoo, the sky's the limit! One thing that is long overdue (in some people's minds) is for Congress to disqualify itself from any future legislative powers to approve raising the debt ceiling. It's pretty much turned into a rubber stamp anyway, so this will not be a major change.

And then there's the “regulatory state”. One of Trump's more successful efforts when it comes to “draining the swamp” has been to chip away at the oppressive mountain of regulations that are designed to stifle free enterprise and innovation, not to mention – gasp! – “profits”. You can expect this monolith to rise again, like Godzilla rising out of the murky waters of Tokyo Bay to wreak further destruction. How does this relate to the “swamp”? Simply because regulations do, in fact, generate jobs – namely all of the jobs that are required in order to enforce regulations. So the Deep State has a vested interest – nay, a downright existential interest – in maximizing regulations and in continually looking for new activities that “need” government regulation.

And as for taxes, well... the Democrats are already primed to claw back all of the so-called “crumbs” that Trump's tax-reduction efforts have put back into the hands of the citizenry. But wait, if these really are “crumbs”, then why is it so important to take them back? It's the principle of the thing, don't you know... the idea, as Bill Clinton memorably said, that the American people simply can't be trusted with their own money. Why, they might spend it on the wrong things! And this has to be prevented by, as much as possible, relieving them of the burden of discretionary cash.

But then what of the hard-core Trump supporters – the “deplorables”? They've had their day in the sun, their hero has been raised on high, but he is now as defeated and wrecked as a Confederate statue. Their dreams are as crushed as were the dreams of Hillary supporters on election night. How are they supposed to react? Well, I've already discussed this issue in a previous blog, “Impeachment and Revolution” (Feb. 7). To provide a hint, just ask yourself who has all the guns, and no, it's not the “snowflakes” or the cry babies who insist on “safe spaces” and on being protected from “triggers”.  The immediate aftermath of the removal of Donald Trump could well be riots and chaos comparable to 1968, if not worse. (And the “peaceniks” of the 1960s will be in charge of crushing any revolts – thus, the ironies of history.)

And what – just in case anyone even cares – of the Republican Party? They will, of course, be blamed for having allowed Donald Trump to be nominated and then having allowed him to be elected; the Democrats managed to knee-cap Bernie, why couldn't the Republicans knee-cap Trump? The few who supported Trump will be sent into exile (figuratively at least), and the “never Trumpers” will be allowed to remain in office as long as they agree to act in a totally bipartisan way (i.e., do whatever the Democrats tell them to do) and promise to never, i.e. never never never, in a million years, come anywhere near nominating anyone like Donald Trump ever again. Or else! So they will, in effect, be “nutted” and turned into eunuchs and geldings (if they aren't already) and relegated to second-class political citizenry for as long as the Republic shall last. And no one will mourn their passing. (And by the way, anyone who had anything, no matter how remote, to do with the Trump administration will be told, in no uncertain terms, that “they'll never work in this town again”, so they may as well start packing.) (Who said the spoils system was a thing of the past? It's more with us now than ever.)

One consequence of the liberal counter-counter-revolution that is, perhaps, unanticipated may be the revival of the libertarian movement, which reached a peak during Ron Paul's campaign. As Seth McLaughlin recently pointed out in a Washington Times article, the libertarian movement Ron and Rand Paul “spawned is a shell of what it once was, torn asunder by the twin forces of Donald Trump on the one hand, and frustration on the other.” Trump has co-opted much of the energy behind the libertarian movement, in other words – even if the results have been of questionable value when compared to the libertarian agenda. But with Trump out of the way, there will be no reason for the libertarians not to go back to their roots and be re-energized.

And as the rest of the world looks on in awe, the United States will undergo the biggest meltdown in its history – and they will have to ask, do we really want to have anything to do with these maniacs any longer? Can't we get along without them? Can't we at least try?

Sure, it's a fantasy – but it's amazing how often dreams (and nightmares) come true.

Assume the Position

The conventional wisdom in real estate is that location is everything. To which we might add, timing is also everything. I recall the gas crises back in the 1970s when the market for homes outside the Beltway – i.e., more than 30 minutes away from downtown or the Mall – went comatose. That was the time to buy, of course, since the minute gasoline became plentiful again real estate in the D.C. suburbs started on its course to stratospheric heights – a trend which continues to this day. (I've always felt that there is a certain poetic justice in the fact that the people who believe themselves entitled to tell everyone else how to live their lives have to, themselves, live with astronomical housing prices as well as grotesque traffic jams from pre-dawn to far into the night.) (Not to mention the truly horrific summer weather.)

It's a similar story in politics. Location – and let us translate that to “position” or “stance”, or even “optics” -- is everything, and timing is everything as well. It's a truism that what motivates politicians above all – Job One – is running for office, winning, and then staying in office... and they will pretty much do, and say, whatever it takes in order to achieve those goals. Politicians in our time can rarely be described as men (or women) of principle, and it's enough to make one weep to consider the Founding Fathers, who were, by comparison, philosophers – and deep thinkers when it came to the nature of man, society, the significance of America, and government. By comparison, today's politicians, while some may be technically intelligent, are total knuckle-draggers when it comes to real thinking, and, in way too many cases, moral imbeciles. So for them survival is not only Job One, but the only thing that makes any sense. “Public service” is something they talk about, and pretend to believe in, but judging by their behavior it winds up on the cutting room floor, more often than not.

If it's true that we get the government we deserve, then it must also be true that we get the leaders and, in general, the politicians we deserve. The basic model for the American Experiment included the concept of an informed and enlightened citizenry – and this was back in the days when “the press” involved setting type by hand and printing one sheet at a time. What we have evolved into is a world of information... of nothing but information, in fact, but most of it is noise disguised as information – random outpourings of the monster we call “the media” which are designed to keep us safely locked in our respective cocoons while believing that we are “informed”.

And politicians are victims of this system as well; let's face it. They tend – if we believe even half of what they say – to be even more deluded than the bulk of the citizenry. They believe – or claim to believe – in ideas that were suspect from the beginning, and which have long since been shown to be delusional and destructive. They are not only creatures of the media, but are totally dependent on those media for their survival – for the sustaining of their image. If politicians are Dr. Frankenstein and the media are the monster, then it's clear that the monster has taken over the castle and that the hapless doctor has to bend to his every whim.

There's nothing terribly new about any of this, and in fact the “Information Age” got under way in earnest soon after World War II, although there were precursors (like radio), and of course the printed word has been with us always – or so it seems. And there's no sense pretending that there is, or ever has been, any such thing as pure, unbiased “news”. Any medium, no matter how venerable, has, to some degree, been an instrument of influence, opinion-making, and propaganda, and the average citizen has ever been at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding events outside his immediate purview. (I recall that we used to regularly mock and make fun of the obvious and blatant propaganda organs of the Soviet Union, like Pravda, Izvestia, and Radio Moscow. That was before we discovered how many American newspapers, magazines, and radio and TV stations were firmly under the thumb of the CIA.) (And don't even get me started on Radio Free Europe, whose broadcasts were, mysteriously, unavailable to anyone living in the U.S.)

But again, this is all business as usual, and no surprise to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock since infancy. We are doomed to act not on what we know (which is very limited in scope) but on what we think we know, or what we believe, or what we (as my high school chemistry teacher used to say ) “fancy”. Ignorance is our lot, sadly. And that ignorance is only aggravated by the amount of time we spend riveted to, and obsessing about, “the news”. It can be said that the more we think we know, the higher a percentage of our “knowledge” is delusion and flights of fancy. (Back when the Cold War was still hot, I used to imagine being up in front of a philosophy class and challenging them to prove to me that there was such a place as Russia (anyone who had actually been there was disqualified). No one was ever able to do this – but, of course, it was only my imagination so who knows?) (The idea was that “Russia” may have been no more than a fictitious bogeyman invented by the government in order to scare people into supporting massive arms buildups and the military draft.) (And here we are in 2017 and the bogeyman hiding under everyone's bed and plotting to steal their vote is -- Russia!)

So in a sense we can pity the politicians, since they are in the same epistemological boat as the rest of us. The problem is that, even though they are fellow victims, they take advantage of the situation to further victimize others. They are adept at the “fact” game, and the “truth” game; they are fast talkers (if not fast thinkers) and just love to tell us what we want to hear, even if it's terrifying. The goal of what I will call verbal terrorism is, of course, to frighten us into not only giving up our common-sense view of things, but becoming helpless and dependent, and easy prey for them and whoever comes along afterward. Think of it as them gaming the system in their favor, the way certain wily prison or concentration camp inmates will somehow gain advantages in power, influence, and resources through scheming, wile, and social dominance (all familiar traits of politicians). Yes, they are in the system, they are victims in a way, and they harbor many of the same delusions the rest of us do, but within those constraints they manage to turn things to their advantage.

Consider now the dilemma of the current crop of politicians in Congress. Actually, consider the dilemma of the Republicans, since the Democrats are facing no dilemma whatsoever as they contemplate the 2018 election season. The Democrats' position is crystal clear: Trump is illegitimate and a usurper who stole the presidency with the help of the Russians, and we must, by any and all means, drive him from office as soon as possible. This is their position, pure and simple, and we can expect them to run on that position, since they have no other. Their thinking at this point goes no further than the image of Trump fleeing the White House with family in tow and being escorted out of town – tar and feathers optional. Of course, it may have occurred to a few of them that the result of this would be that Mike Pence would become president. But that would be illegitimate as well, so he would also have to be impeached, and... well, it's hard to come up with a scenario where Hillary would return to Washington in triumph and ascend to the throne that she has been so rudely denied for so long. At least it's hard to come up with that scenario consistent with the Constitution – but who cares about that silly old hunk of paper anyway? If Hillary descended on Washington the way Lenin descended on Petrograd, she would undoubtedly be declared president by popular acclaim, and any naysayers would be dealt with most severely; at least this is the fantasy no doubt entertained by many members of the “resistance”.

That's the Democratic position in a nutshell; cue “To Dream the Impossible Dream”. The party may lack a clear leadership structure (as witness the cat fight between Hillary and Donna “Bobo” Brazile), but no one can deny that it represents ideas – a world view. And there are countless weak-egoed people in that party who would still be willing to walk over hot coals at Hillary's bidding. For the Republicans, however, it's a far different story. Leadership? Hard to say. Ideas? None that I can come up with offhand. And who's going to walk over hot coals for Yertle the Turtle, er, I mean Mitch McConnell?

Here's where we get back to “position” and “timing”. For starters, we're already seeing Republicans dropping out simply because it would offend their tender sensibilities to run again under the Republican banner, which has been so badly contaminated by Trump and “Trumpism”. They prefer to wash their hands of the entire matter, and thus remain as pure as the driven snow. Yeah, right. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of them (all representatives and a third of senators) have to make a decision, and make it soon. Many of them were “never Trumpers” during the election season last year, and others undoubtedly agreed but hesitated to say so in so many words because they knew which way the wind was blowing. Some got elected because they openly supported Trump, and some because they openly opposed him; same with the losers. Again, position and timing. (And location, if we're talking “red” vs. “blue” vs. “hard to predict”.) In short, the 2016 election was, for many of them, a gamble – and for the House of Representatives it's going to be “here we go again” next year.

But this time the landscape has changed. Instead of having to respond to Trump's campaign, and adopt positions vis-a-vis the many issues he brought up, now they have to stake out a position vis-a-vis the actual Trump administration – 9 months young at this time, but over twice that come November of 2018.

And how are they responding, other than the ones who've already bailed? Well, the “never Trumpers” are holding firm, more or less, and showing solidarity with the Democrats. But is that anything that will get them re-elected a year from now? Isn't loyalty worth anything any longer?

Then you have the more or less silent majority, who remain more or less silent, but sooner or later their constituents will, hopefully, demand that they fish or cut bait, and declare which side they're on.

Then you have the ones who openly support Trump, or seem to be doing so – but is this nothing more than a gamble on their part? And will this positioning morph in some way over the next year?

They're all gambling, as a matter of fact, and they're gambling on at least two things at once: (1) the fate of the Trump administration; and (2) public opinion. And that gamble has a temporal element in that the administration's fortunes will surely continue to develop in as chaotic a fashion as they've been doing to date... and as to public opinion, we know how it can turn on a dime.

If there were a publicly-traded crystal ball industry, a “buy” recommendation would be in order at this point. Unfortunately, there is no such entity, so the denizens of Capitol Hill are caught in a multi-layered dilemma – and richly-deserved, in my opinion.

The trajectory, or fate, of the Trump administration is anyone's guess. To begin with, his administration has yet to get off the ground. Sure, he's managed to spray roach killer on a lot of Obama's executive orders with executive orders of his own; this was Job One, and he's doing it. All well and good. But if you only live by the executive order, you also die by the executive order. What counts in the long run is legislation, and in that area Trump's program, or proposed program, is at a standstill. And this is with majorities in both houses of Congress! But again, we have to remember that the “never Trumpers” tip the scales; as they indicated, without a hint of shame, during the 2016 campaign, they would rather lose the election than see Trump as president, and now they are saying that they would rather join the Democrats than see Trump succeed. But again, how is this going to play out in flyover country next year? Time will tell.

If we want to be brutally frank about it, we are still operating under Obama's policies and with Obama's programs. The Trump administration is, so far, Obama's third term, with no signs of anything that can change it. Obama rules the bureaucracy, AKA the “deep state”, from his mansion on a hill in D.C.; why else would he have stayed in Washington if it were not to perform this function?  He's got plenty of time to go back to Chicago and return to community activism.  He has become the gray eminence of the Democratic Party, gently easing out Bill Clinton, although the latter could always reassert his Svengali-like control if he felt the urge. What all of this adds up to is that Trump is in a position new to American politics: With his (OK, “his”) party in power in both houses, he finds himself hobbled and kneecapped at every turn, because half of “his” party is against him, in addition to pretty much everyone else on Earth except those who voted for him, who have shown, so far, admirable loyalty.

What this means is that, short of actual impeachment, the Trump administration is going to remain theoretical. It's going to slog along, confined to the White House, while the rest of the country goes on its merry, or not so merry, way. But, again, we have this hard core of loyal Trump supporters, and we have to assume that they will vote in 2018. So any Republican who expects to get elected, or re-elected, in 2018 has to concentrate on positioning. Who will be going to the polls on Election Day of 2018? Trump loyalists? Never Trumpers? Skeptics? Independents? The mind boggles.

But let's not overlook the temporal dimension. Between now and a year from now, anything can happen. Trump might pull off some significant triumphs in terms of domestic (read: economic) policy, or in terms of foreign policy. That would enhance his value as an ally and as a possible source of support. On the other hand, any number of bad things might happen domestically (read: economically) or foreign policy-wise. And in that case, Trump is going to become a liability that no one will want to be identified with.

All of this adds up to an Excedrin headache par excellence for Republican office holders and office-seekers. One can almost smell the scent of fear and cowardice oozing out of the Capitol. Now, life would be simpler for them if they were men (women) of principle. If that were so, they could simply run on the basis of principles and ideas, and the pro- vs. anti-Trump issue wouldn't even come up. Or if it did, it would be irrelevant. But that's not the way things work these days. Everyone is looking for coattails to ride, and whoever rode in on Trump's coattails may be starting to wonder if that was such a good idea. Ditto with anti-Trump coattails (whatever they might be). The current “buzz” is that you have to be pro-Trump to get elected or re-elected. Even if that's true, it's only true right now, today. It may not be true tomorrow. By the time next fall rolls around, Republican candidates may have all joined the resistance, and be trash-talking along with Pelosi and Schumer. (In which case, why bother voting for a Republican when you can vote for the real thing? But that's been a question ever since the Republicans ceased being true conservatives.)

The only bright spot in all of this is that Trump seems to be more able than any career politician to ignore the “nattering nabobs” in Congress, and the media, and Hollywood, and everywhere that nattering nabobs congregate. He seems to have a vision, and a program, and a plan, and he seems to be determined and consistent about it, and not spending a whole lot of time figuring out how to make people happy and like him – which, in itself, is extremely refreshing. But if Trumpism is so radically removed from business as usual in Washington, are its chances of survival, not to mention success, any better than those of any other outsider and/or populist movement down through history? Are we to have, basically, four years of stalemate followed by a return to the usual way of doing things (accompanied by a resounding Republican defeat in 2020, no doubt)? Will the establishment have taught those pesky populists a damn good lesson? (Bernie-ites and Warren-ites should be paying attention to this as well, by the way.) And – if the pendulum has swung more in the populist direction than ever before with the ascendence of Donald Trump, what will it look like when it swings back the other way, which it almost certainly will?

Ah, yes -- “interesting times”.