Whose Presidency Was It Anyway?

I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about when it comes to “Who was in charge?” during the Biden administration, given that Biden himself was clearly not in charge, or unable to be in charge (even if he was), or deluded into thinking he was in charge (even though he wasn't), etc. The point is that someone was, indeed, in charge – even if we don't yet know who it was, and may never know for certain. It's hard enough to run a White House with no one in charge, let alone the Executive Branch, let alone the entire country (which includes foreign policy). And even if we say, well, it was more like a committee, well then who called the meetings of said committee, and who was in charge of implementing whatever they came up with? There really is no escaping this question. The White House can't be like some federal agencies, in which – as far as I can tell – no one does anything. Someone has to be doing something at least some of the time. There is, after all, discernible output, even if, in Biden's case, it could be pretty thin at times.

So the good news is that someone was in charge, because someone had to be. Ever heard of an ocean liner sailing across the Atlantic with no one in charge? Or a jumbo jet flying across the Pacific with no one in charge? No. No way. Now... someone with an excellent memory might recall what happened when Stalin died. Nobody dared to step in and single-handedly take over. After all, who could possibly fill Uncle Joe's shoes? So they came up with a “troika” – a team of three, one of whom was Nikita Khrushchev. For a while there it seemed to work, but eventually Nikita came out on top and became the new face of Soviet Russia.

But compared to the Biden administration, the post-Stalin years were a model of transparency, the way the post-Soviet years were right out in the open for everyone to see. (Even the post-Mao years had more transparency than the so-called Biden White House.)

So the first question ought not to be “who was in charge?” but “does it even matter?” The Republic survived what many (especially overseas) might consider an interregnum. And not only that, but there was nothing unprecedented about it. Any number of commentators have pointed out similarities with Wilson (with Edith taking the reins from the failing Woodrow), and with FDR (rumor has it that Alger Hiss was the one in charge at Yalta, at least).

But let's drill down a bit more. Can anyone realistically claim that Jimmy Carter was fully in charge during his term in office? (He certainly served as a convenient scapegoat in countless ways.) Or how about Bush II? It's pretty much conventional wisdom that Dick Cheney was running the show. (They even made a movie about it.)

Consider this. Presidents have a staff. They have advisors. They have aides. But they don't all have “handlers” (I call them “keepers”) – you know, people who are in charge of damage control, which means to (1) try and keep the boss from committing blunders, or gaffes, or looking bad in public; and (2) cover for him when he still messes up, by making excuses which border on the ridiculous at times; and (3) telling the viewing public not to believe their lying eyes – that the boss didn't really do or say that, and it's all a conspiracy theory and a “cheap fake” and “hate”. And, BTW, enlisting the help of the compliant media in constructing an impenetrable wall of lies. All of these strategies were on full display on a daily basis during the Biden administration – and I nominate “Dr. Jill” as the handler-in-chief, but she must have had plenty of help.

So there's a continuum, in a way, as defined by how many “handlers” a given president has, and how often they are called upon to function. I would say that Biden, at this point, anchors the scale on the high end, but one also has to consider Carter, Clinton, and Bush II as being high on the “handler” scale. Even JFK is along there somewhere. (Trump, OTOH, doesn't seem to have any handlers – not even one! What you see is what you get, and there's no one off-camera wringing their hands and wondering how to “explain this one away”.)

And – not to imply that there's anything unique about presidents here – this also applies to vice presidents, presidential candidates, vice presidential candidates, and not a few assorted governors and mayors. Politicians climb to the heights with “a little help from their friends”. 'Twas ever thus. But then why go to all that trouble? Why not just work for a candidate, or official, who's not such a handful? Well... the plus side, if you will, is that weak-willed and incompetent people are easier to manipulate and direct, so if you're in charge of a “challenged” politician you can, with any luck, basically take over and direct said politician in the ways you would like him or her to go. And this, of course, is exactly what happened with Biden; someone recently quipped that his debilitation was “not a bug, but a feature”. (Implication – the people behind the scenes are smarter than the guy out front. True! An amazing percentage of the time. Can you imagine Bush II's “aides” being dumber than he was? Not a chance. They could have been president, but they didn't have the curb appeal.) (Ever notice how often these “aides” – when you see them on camera, which is rare – look like those high school geeks who couldn't get dates? So they compensate by being the power behind the throne. Not a bad gig, when you think about it – four years of job security and absolutely immune from any blame or responsibility.) (Kind of like pretty much any government job, truth be told.)

Now, let's admit that anyone who is president, no matter their level of intelligence or competence or energy, has an impossible job. If you read the Constitution, the job of president doesn't sound all that complicated or difficult; you basically have to have a modicum of wisdom and have the best interests of the American people at heart, and be a competent administrator. But, 200-plus years later, the job has turned into, #1, more of a kingship than a mere office, and #2, an all-powerful image of someone who can do anything, who puts Superman to shame, and who merits worship more suitable for a Roman deity. The problem here is that it sets an impossible standard, and raises expectations to stratospheric heights, with the result that any perceived failure is met with anger, indignation, and – too often – homicidal rage. When your god turns out to have feet of clay, he must die! So what motivates assassins is, at least in part, frustration – their victim was not perfect. He was tried and found wanting, so he has to go, and they're the one to make it happen.

A while back I put up blog posts which touched on the subject of Obama as The Chosen One, and that he subsequently became the kingmaker, brushing off all contenders for the nomination in 2016, including Joe Biden, in favor of Hillary Clinton. And when she was defeated for reasons yet to be determined, he remained in that role and, four years later, brushed off everyone except his vice president, namely Joe Biden. And when Joe Biden started to stumble (literally and figuratively), guess what, Obama stepped in once again and helped to engineer what has been described as a “coup” (a palace coup, at least), putting Uncle Joe out to pasture and putting Kamala up for election.

And lest we forget, there are many other ways this could have been accomplished. Biden could have been persuaded to retire prior to the election, which would have made Kamala the president, and increase her chances of winning in 2024 (not guaranteed, as witness Gerald Ford). Or, they could have left Biden on the ticket, let him win in 2024, and then persuaded him to quit, which would have made Kamala the president anyway. In a sense, the path they chose was the most risky one – get Biden to give up on being re-elected, but keep him in office, and declare Kamala the nominee without benefit of a primary, but force her to campaign to the best of her abilities with limited time. It kinda makes you wonder... why did they choose that route? It's mainly because Trump at that point was under siege, and everyone was convinced he'd be in jail by Election Day, which would sort of put a crimp in his chances of winning (even though he could, theoretically, have been elected while in jail – it's happened elsewhere in the world, and more than once). So with Trump on the defense on all fronts, Kamala seemed like a shoo-in.

But Trump fought back – and when you think about it, what does it take, after all, to make it big in New York City? And in real estate? You have to deal with regulations, corrupt politicians, the Mob, bankers, the media, the unions... it's basically impossible, and yet the tough somehow manage to survive. Now, given that, compared to New York City Washington D.C. is a much deeper cesspool of corruption and is a much bigger power center with a much larger entrenched bureaucracy, Trump's experience from his years in NYC paid off – first in 2016 and then again in 2024 (once he “wised up” about Washington, since he had underestimated it in 2016 and pretty much took office in 2017 as a lame duck).

But now, wait a minute! I said that Obama helped to engineer the “coup” that took Biden out of contention for 2024. People talk about Pelosi and Shumer, but no one mentions Obama.  "Ignore the man behind the curtain!"  So let's go back to 2017 when Trump takes office for the first time. What does Obama do? Does he retire, in the Bill Clinton mode? Does he go on book and lecture tours, or take a cushy job in academics or at a non-profit? No! He moves into a mansion in D.C., and... what? How many ex-presidents have taken up residence in Washington, D.C.? Only one, as I recall. But why? And why, despite all that, did we hear and see very little of him during Trump's first term? What was he doing all that time? Remember that he's an activist – a community organizer – a rabble-rouser. A true believer. Is he just going to fade away? Of course not.

My theory is that Obama was, during Trump's first term, running what is called The Deep State, i.e. the massive, unelected bureaucracy, and that their sole purpose during that period was to thwart, prevent, and sabotage if need be, any and all of Trump's initiatives and programs, which, let's admit, they pretty much did. Not only that, but they came right out in public and admitted it, for example in the impeachment hearings. It was their patriotic duty, after all. (So much for the Deep State being a “conspiracy theory” – they stood right up to be counted, with the cameras rolling.)

And it worked – or some will say that it worked, the proof being that Biden defeated Trump in 2020, whether legitimately or not matters little at this point. And Trump could have just gone back to his good life as a real estate tycoon, shaken the D.C. dust from his shoes, and pronounced a curse upon politics. And this is what everyone was hoping for – including, let's admit, most Republicans. The Never Trumpers became the Never Again Trumpers. And yet... after four years of “lawfare”, guess who won the nomination without even participating in any of the primary debates?

But let's get back to Obama for a moment. Let's say he really was running the Deep State all during Trump's first term – with the blessing of the Clintons, of course, who remain the true spiritual (if that is the word) leaders of the Democratic Party. So Biden takes office in 2021. Does Obama say “mission accomplished” and finally retire? Not a chance. Suddenly the Deep State becomes the state, and who better to stay in charge of it than Obama? (You think he'd trust Biden with anything that important? Or Kamala? Cue the laugh track.) And when the 2024 election loomed, the king maker became the king breaker (and the queen maker), calculating that the proper strategy was to get Biden to drop out of the race but not leave office until after the election. A risky strategy, as I said, but everyone on that side underestimated not only Trump's base, but the sophistication of his (and the Republicans') election watchdogs. (“We won't be fooled again.”)

So now we have, first, what I call Obama's third term, namely Trump's first term, followed by Obama's fourth term, namely Biden's first (and only) term. So... is it time for Obama to really and truly retire, at long last? Can he finally become history, rather than current events? Another way of putting it is that Obama, for all intents and purposes, served for four full terms – which beats FDR, who gave it a try but was rudely interrupted by his own demise. (Seem like there's something in the Constitution about all this, but like so many things in the Constitution it's pretty much either forgotten or ignored.) (And! If Kamala had won last November, we'd be at the start of Obama's fifth term! And here I thought only third-world countries had “presidents for life”.)

Now, of course, we have Trump trolling the media and the Democrats by talking about a third term for himself. Who knew you could have so much fun pretending to set fire to the Constitution? Frankly, if Trump was already thinking about the 2028 election, he wouldn't be on a search and destroy mission vis-a-vis the Deep State. As it is, he has nothing to lose, and even if he doesn't succeed in driving a stake through the heart of the Deep State, he's certainly put it on notice that it's not all-powerful, and has exposed its machinations through the efforts of the gnomes of DOGE.

So, boys and girls, the bottom line (for now) is that, yes, someone is always in charge. The world is too big and too complex for it to be otherwise. Plus, power has always been a great magnet (some would say aphrodisiac) for certain types of people. So that's not the question. The question is who, what's their agenda, and what's their strategy? And an even better question is simply this: Are you pleased with the results? No matter who was actually running things for Biden's four years in office, was the country, and world, better off at the end of his term than it had been at the start? That should be the sole criterion for any assessment of his presidency, even if he was no more than a propped-up figurehead. The verdict may not be against him, but it has to be against someone. Or for someone. You make the call.

Don't Even Think About Running for President in 2024 (if you're a Republican)

 

The conventional wisdom among the conservative commentariat is that Trump and his family, and various members of his administration, are being hounded by the government (at all levels – federal, state (NY and Florida), and local (NYC)) in order to insure that he doesn't run for president in 2024. With all due respect, I disagree, and here's why.

#1, he'd be out of his mind to run (even assuming he's not in jail by that time, or some law or Constitutional amendment hasn't been dredged up to render him disqualified) given the treatment he received the last time around – from the day of his announcement through the campaign, and though his entire time in office, and even afterwards up to the present day. (I made some related comments in a blog post, “4 More Years? Really??”, July 28, 2020.) Trump may have some less-than-stellar personality traits, but I don't think masochism is one of them.

#2, if Biden managed to win against Trump in 2020, he can win against him again in 2024. Period! Or – whoever the DNC chooses to replace Biden can win likewise. The counterargument is that Biden (or whoever) would, in 2024, be running not only against Trump but against his (Biden's) own record during his first term – which, to the same commentariat, is considered dismal, to put it mildly. The problem there is that Biden has not lost a bit of support, either politically or among the electorate, since his inauguration. His fan club in the mainstream media are unstinting in their support and in running interference for him, and have yet to publish, or broadcast, any “news” which would be detrimental to him or his administration. (If Reagan was the “Teflon president”, then Biden is the “new improved Teflon president”. Not only does nothing stick, nothing even gets close.) To put it another way, Biden is a roaring success at this point, going from one victory to another – and as long as the faithful continue to believe this, he's good to go for 2024. (And it's hard to imagine anything that could cause the faithful not to keep believing. I mean, if a simple comparison of the way things are now with the way they were in January 2021 isn't sufficient, then nothing is.)

#3, even if Trump returned from political Siberia and staged a comeback not unlike that of Napoleon when he returned from Elba, would he attract any support outside of his hard-core MAGA constituency – the ones who attend his rallies? My sense is that his former supporters among the Republican mainstream have suffered enough – they have a chronic case of “Trump fatigue” that will not be eradicated. (And this is not Trump's fault, by the way – it's just that they're tired of the endless domestic warfare that Trump's being in the White House led to and sustained for more than four years.) (Call Trump fatigue the flip side of Trump Derangement Syndrome, if you like – both very much with us, especially now that the latter is official government policy.) And if his erstwhile supporters among Republicans are demoralized and worn out, imagine where the “independents” who voted for him in 2016 stand; they don't even have any party loyalty to hold them together. They were the first to jump ship, and are nowhere to be found at this point.

So, bottom line, the Democrats have nothing whatsoever to fear from Trump in 2024, and I think they know it. If he should dare to run, they could run the proverbial yellow dog against him and the dog would win. So it's not about Trump at all, is it? At least not in terms of the election of 2024. So if it's not about him, what is it about, other than playing to the paranoiac crowd?

There are two factors motivating the War on All Things Trump. One is simple vengeance. Trump deserves to be punished severely, and in perpetuity, for even having run for president and – even worse – for having won, and – even worse – for managing to stay in office for a full four-year term, despite two, count 'em, two impeachments – not to mention being accused of treason and being Putin's lapdog, along with countless other crimes. Lest we forget, his candidacy started out as a joke (to the media), and no one except Anne Coulter took it seriously – at least in public – until the morning after Election Day, when the sky fell and the pillars of the temple crumbled to dust. Privately, of course, the counter-candidacy drive was on from day one, with various elements of the Obama administration taking a leading role.

And then there was the humiliation of Hillary Clinton, Empress-in-Waiting, who never hurt a fly and in no wise deserved such shabby treatment as to be defeated by this big orange guy from New York City (just down the road from Chappaqua, to add to the insult).

And then there was the fact that, once in office, he tried to run the government like a business, and actually make changes that were more than merely cosmetic. And this, of course, was a wake-up call for the bureaucracy, AKA the Deep State, which marshaled its forces in an all-out effort to thwart, neutralize, or at the very least ignore his every initiative – with signal success, I might add. But the fact that he didn't back down – no “walking back”, “clarifying”, or “reconsidering” with this guy -- caused the derangement to boil over into public view (the impeachment hearings providing a prime example, where one petty bureaucrat after another got up and said that they considered it their patriotic duty as Americans to sabotage any Trump programs).

So yes – for breaking all the rules, and never apologizing, Trump deserves all he's getting, and more. And clearly the “numbers” didn't count, i.e. the various measures of the success of his initiatives which continued to mount up, and which the mainstream media and the Democrats could only answer either with “It's a lie” or “It doesn't matter”. (Although it's funny how Biden and his minions spout the same sorts of numbers every day, and we're all expected to believe them without question.)

That's the punishment-vengeance-vendetta piece, perfectly understandable in this day and age. America at its finest! An entire administration devoted to one thing, the punishment of the previous administration. Can you say “banana republic”, class?

The second factor is, if you will, less emotional and more strategic, and that's to show anyone foolish enough to consider running for president on the Republican ticket in 2024 what will happen to them if they go through with it. Well, number one, they won't win for many of the same reasons Trump couldn't win, even if they are identified as never-Trumpers, anti-MAGA hatters... untouched by the outrages of the Trump “era”... pure as the driven snow. For one thing, the Democrats are the majority party now at the federal level at least, and it's delusional to think otherwise. So a Republican with all the finest anti-Trump credentials – let's say a reincarnation of John McCain – and not festooned with Trump cooties – has very little chance, because they will inevitably be lumped in with Trump anyway and called his clone, or Trump 2.0, or some such. (Plus, the chances are that their kids' nanny's brother-in-law once changed the oil in one of Trump's cars, and that is sufficient evidence to find the hapless candidate guilty as charged.) (This is no exaggeration. It's the way things operated on a daily basis in the Soviet Union, and in Mao's China.)

Now – one could ask – if the Democrats are sure-fire winners in 2024, why bother to intimidate the Republicans into... maybe even giving up and not running at all? If the Republicans managed to bring Abraham Lincoln back to life and put him up as a candidate, might they not stand a chance? Well, let's just call it “insurance”. The fact that the Democrats have an iron grip on the voting process (polls, machines, ballots, counts, novel voting procedures, and so on) in many states and in all major cities might have swung an election, or more than one, in the past. Nowadays it would be seen as redundant – a case of “overkill”, if you will. But the mechanisms are in place, and they have to be kept up to snuff – after all, there are state and local elections to think about, not to mention elections for Congressional seats. Besides, the intimidation factor trickles down to the state and local level; political correctness is now the law of the land, and there is no elective office so trivial or obscure that it will escape the attention of the PC police if anyone tries wandering off the reservation. (And, lest we forget, the sacred duty of any true believer in totalitarianism is not just to defeat those who disagree, but to exterminate the disagreement. This is right out of “1984” and is as true today as it ever was.)

So, bottom line-wise, who in their right mind would want to put themselves and their family through all that? The mainstream media have tasted blood, and they're unlikely to cover their fangs for any future Republican – not even for the ilk of Liz Cheney, a sheep in wolves' clothing who is more anti-Trump than most Democrats.

So basically, you can count anyone who proposes running on the Republican ticket in 2024 as (1) delusional, (2) masochistic, and (3) ready for the funny farm. But this doesn't mean plenty won't try, since those qualities seem to typify Republican politicians these days.

So now we know what's really behind the new, improved witch hunt being staged against Trump and anyone who had even the slightest, most trivial connection with him. (Note that not only his lawyers are being called up before Congressional committees, but their lawyers, and their lawyers. Before long half the legal profession will be headed for federal prison (and come to think of it, that might actually be regarded as a good thing).)

Then, given all of the above, why is the conservative commentariat insisting that it's all about keeping Trump from running in 2024? I think it's basically about denial. In their world, the following propositions actually have some truth value:

1. Trump could win if he ran in 2024.

2. Some other Republican could win in 2024 if Trump chose not to run or was prevented from running.

3. The Republican Party represents the majority opinion among the American citizenry.

4. Biden's record will count against him in 2024.

5. Trump is still, in some mysterious way, the leader of the Republican Party (in this, at least, they agree with the mainstream media).

6. The Republican Party has a future on the national level.

Did I say “denial”? “Delusional” is more like it. Also “smoking their socks”. And so on. My expectation for 2024 is very simple: If Biden should choose not to run, what are the Democrats going to do about Kamala Harris? (Who? – you ask. Precisely my point. This should be TV worth watching; the rest is drearily predictable.)

Obama's Fourth Term

 

Regardless of any last-minute official reports that may or may not come out in the next few hours (and it's doubtful there will be any, given that the Trump administration is sinking faster than the Titanic, with people at all levels bailing out like the proverbial rats deserting a sinking ship), there are some things that are now plain to see, and that will define the Trump presidency and this era to a significant degree.

And of these, perhaps the most striking is the role Barack Obama has played in all of this – starting on or about the day Donald Trump took that fabled escalator ride (down rather than up, and that's enough for a metaphor right there). Whether or not Obama was inspired by Hillary Clinton's custom-made Russia hoax is one question, i.e. would he have initiated a full-scale sabotage operation directed at Trump if it hadn't been for the tall tale of Trump's collusion with Russia? What I suspect is that he was already thinking seriously about the matter, and about strategy, but that the Russia hoax story was like unto a gift from above; it was tossed into his lap, and at that point he decided to go full-bore with the operation. And of course Hillary was out of office at that point, and technically a private citizen, so she could not readily call upon, and mobilize, the forces of the Deep State, and in particular the FBI and the Justice Department, the way Obama could.

But really, how badly did Obama want to render the 2016 election of Donald Trump null and void, and thus propel Hillary into her rightful place as Empress of America, of the Known World, and of the Universe in General? Did he really want her to succeed wherever he had failed? (Did he want her to turn Obamacare back into Hillarycare, for example?) What I suspect is that he knew the Russia hoax was, indeed, a hoax and that it would be exposed as such sooner or later – but that in the meantime it would serve to distract and hobble Trump and his administration, and any and all of his initiatives, both domestic and foreign, for, ideally, his entire term or the bulk thereof – which is, in fact, precisely what it did. And the instant the Russia hoax ran out of steam the impeachment (#1) went into high gear – seamlessly, with nary a bump in the road. In other words, turning Trump into an instant lame duck was more important than any sort of considerations for Hillary's health and well-being, so she was reduced to years of book tours and raving and ranting to anyone who would listen about how she'd been cheated (she being an expert in that area, as we know), while Obama proceeded to pursue more important long-range goals.

There's another nuance to all of this – subtle, I admit – speculative – but “what if?” We've seen how easy it is for an election to be hijacked if people have sufficient determination and the proper infrastructure. So what went wrong in 2016? And yeah, I know, they didn't have mail-in voting then, and maybe the voting machines were less hackable. But still – you'd think with all their resources the Dems could have pulled it off. Unless – and here's Obama playing the long game – he decided to let her get defeated. And why would he do that? Well, he knew who she was running against. Now, if she had won, Donald Trump would have been jettisoned off the political stage once and for all – a real one-hit wonder. Which means that the mainline Republicans would have remained in charge of their party and would have been ready to mount a campaign in 2020 with a “back to normalcy” theme that would have taken advantage of what would likely have been a disastrous four years of Hillary Clinton. And they might have won, and we'd be right back in the Bush era (maybe even with another Bush!). And Obama would have to finally retire from his position of influence in Washington. But! Allow Trump to win and then mount a campaign against him that rivals the Normandy invasion, and you can put the Republican Party in a permanent state of exile, and thus assure the Democrats perpetual rule. And this, course, is precisely what has happened. The good ship Trump is heading for the briny deep, and so is the Republican Party, at least on the national level – whether or not any of its members were on Trump's side. They will all be painted with the same brush. The Trump administration will be the bloody shirt that the Dems will wave in the air every time the Republicans start to show any signs of life; the Republican Party will be about as popular as the Confederacy. Mission accomplished! And if this is how it was played, you would have to admire Obama's political brilliance and insight.

But in any case, do you really think that once Obama helped get this whole Russia collusion process rolling he was going to just walk away and leave it to his minions? Get real. I'll bet he was right on top of this the whole time – overseeing, directing, prioritizing, providing guidance... not unlike the commander of a military operation. He had to make sure it stayed on track and paved the way for not only Trump's fall, but also that of the Republicans – not just in the 2020 election but in perpetuity. (His role came most prominently to the surface during the Democratic primaries, which I'll discuss in a minute. But it's not like he swooped down like a bird of prey that once time, and left things to take their course the rest of the time.)

(At this point you might say, wait a minute, the Mueller investigation was initiated during the Trump administration. Well yes, barely – but the groundwork had already been laid, and the investigation was staffed entirely by what were termed “angry Democrats”, so let's not quibble on that point. It was a Democratic operation from beginning to end.) (I used to think that if Trump ever tried to de-politicize the FBI he'd have to get down to at least the level of the third underassistant toilet paper replacement specialist in the J. Edgar Hoover Building.)

This all has to do with power, of course and as always – with the acquisition thereof and the perpetuation thereof. And Obama did have to leave the White House at a certain point, but that was a minor consideration since it seems very possible that he already, prior to leaving office, had assumed full authority over the Deep State and over its most powerful and influential elements. So, in effect, there would have been no real “transition” between the Obama administration and the Trump administration – the Obama administration hardly giving up a thing but continuing as before, but as a shadow government, and it was actually greater in number by far, in terms of people who were loyal to Obama and willing to follow his directives, than the administration of Donald Trump, where the most he could ever claim were the few appointees at the top of each pyramid. According to this theory, Obama had, all the time Trump was in the White House, his own bureaucracy, his own intelligence apparatus, and his own foreign policy. He certainly had sufficient appointees and friends in all the right departments; we know this from all the characters who came out of the woodwork to testify at the impeachment hearings. (And by the way, if there was no real transition in 2017, there was no need for one this time either, and all of the Democrats' whining about the Trump administration dragging its feet was mere show.)

So what does this all add up to? For starters, consider the possibility that Obama, for the first time in history as an ex-president, didn't give up any real power. In fact, he didn't even leave town! He just moved from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue not even a mile up the hill to a mansion in Kalorama – the new seat of government, in effect, until the Democrats could reclaim what was rightfully theirs. So Trump started out with a White House full of loyalists (but not all, as it turns out) and appointees scattered around D.C. as figureheads of various departments, agencies, and offices, and a handful of supporters in Congress, and his solid base among the citizenry – i.e. those who voted for him – but that was about it. “Draining the Swamp” does not come under the heading of “promises made, promises kept”. It couldn't, and it can't. You might as well try and levitate the Great Pyramid and plunk it down in the middle of Kansas.

So the next four years for Trump were an unending struggle to get the bureaucracy to cooperate – or even to appear to cooperate – or to at least not actively and blatantly resist and refuse to follow orders. And this was on top of unending challenges from Congress and the judiciary. Truly, it's a miracle the slightest thing got done in all that time.

So where do we go from here? Who's going to be in charge as of noon tomorrow? Joe Biden? The very thought is enough to inspire scoffing and derision. Bookmakers have already been taking bets on how long he'll last. Oh, you say that if Old Uncle Joe falters and is “25th'ed” Kamala Harris will take command? Sorry about that, but she's a figurehead too. I mean, think about it for a moment. For starters, who called in all of the Democratic contenders for the presidency at some point in the primaries – i.e. all the ones who had the vaguest hope of coming out on top? We know who, and it might have been a scene right out of Hollywood -- Don Barraco, capo di tuti capi, calling them, one by one, into his dimly-lit office and making them an offer they couldn't refuse. “This ain't your night, kid”, or words to that effect. All, of course, except for Uncle Joe, who, as it turned out, had been anointed all along. If only the rest of them had known, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (not to mention money, like in Mike Bloomberg's case).

But what about Kamala Harris? She never lost a primary because she never entered one. (Smart move.) Was she promised the VP slot by Mr. Big way back then? Who knows? One thing is clear – she was, at a certain point, chosen, and certainly not by Uncle Joe. But why her, out of all the countless possibilities? Number one, and most obviously – her “diversity” qualifications, which are overwhelming. It's hard to find a minority she doesn't belong to. And she is a hard leftist, just a bit less noisy than The Squad. But most importantly, if Obama made her he can break her, so she has to follow orders. If she is directed to bow to, and play along with, The Squad, she will. If she's directed to tell them to stuff it, she will. Because she can be replaced.

What I'm saying is that she's a younger and flashier sock puppet than Uncle Joe, but is a sock puppet nonetheless. The Anointed One may still be in charge. So what we will be witnessing tomorrow may well be, in effect, the start of Barack Obama's fourth term as president, at which point he will be tied with Franklin Roosevelt, but hey – ties were meant to be broken, right? If the Republicans are permanent dead meat on the federal level, what's to prevent Obama from being president for life? But that would be in the tradition of guys like Stalin, Mao, Putin, Kim, Duvalier, Mugabe, and other sterling characters, so he might want to think again. But perhaps, now that democracy has been tried and found wanting, we are about to enter another age of the Strong Man – or, more accurately, return to it, thoroughly chastened, after a brief hiatus.

Normalcy at All Costs !

 

I call it “the Stop the Madness Vote”, and I think it's real. What it means in the case of the recent – and still disputed -- election is that a certain portion of the populace will cast a vote neither pro nor con a given candidate, but merely in the hope that it will help things to return to normal (however defined). After all, the citizenry has, for four-plus years now, been exposed to a level of political and social warfare that, for sheer viciousness and chaos, rivals anything most of them have experienced in a “real” war. Granted, there haven't been that many fatalities or serious injuries directly attributable to the conflict, but the citizenry are fatigued... exhausted... rubbed raw... and have been forced to live in a world where every conceivable thing (and some inconceivable things) have been totally politicized. We've been living in a crucible for over four years now. Economies on all levels save the very top layer have been shattered using the corona virus as an excuse. Innumerable relationships, even within families, have been strained or even broken... and the degree of mutual suspicion, hostility, and alienation among the citizenry has reached a level comparable to that in totalitarian societies. This was not the way we were meant to live in what is supposedly a free and open society; it's more like the atmosphere of the proverbial banana republic, where there is a coup or revolution every few weeks, and the sounds of marching boots and gunfire are always to be heard.

The forces and entities that have created this dystopian/nightmare world for us are many, and represent many motivations and agendas, which can be debated at another time. What I suspect is that the average voter, being an average citizen who simply wants to be allowed to live a simple, ordinary life without having to put up with a constant drumbeat of politics that he has no choice but to listen to... that person may eventually decide to vote not for a given candidate, or against a given candidate, but simply for whomever they think is most likely to return things to normal. They don't even have to agree with their platform or stated positions! In fact, they might find them distasteful. But the motivation to remove politics from everyday life – from something requiring 24/7 attention, and from which there is no escape – and go back to something that is confined to what used to be termed “election season” before the unending campaign era started has to be strong and compelling.

For example, a vote for Trump in November would have required a commitment, or at least a willingness to put up with, four more years of what has been going on for four-plus years already. (I detailed this in a recent post: https://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2020/07/4-more-years-really.html) Now, for a certain type of person this sort of thing is the ideal – pure red meat – crack cocaine. It's the way they want to live, and the way they expect others to live as well. Call them political junkies, swamp creatures, Deep State denizens, whatever – they thrive on battle, warfare, intrigue, and double-dealing, and cannot imagine life being any other way if it is to be satisfying and fulfilling. A good example of this personality type is “The Squad” which occupies the very tip of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But other Democrats are energized in a similar fashion, and even some Republicans – although the latter, being conservative by nature if not always by practice, would rather life was more like that depicted in certain classic TV shows like “Mayberry R.F.D.” The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to prefer an environment more akin to “Animal House” – at least the anarchistic part, which eventually leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. And because we are in an age of revolution, the Democratic world view is naturally the dominant one, and the one that appeals to perhaps not the majority of the populace but to enough of them that they are willing to vote for The Squad and their facilitators (and those who are afraid of getting on their wrong side, like a certain president-elect).

But we're talking about large segments of the voting populace here, and the Stop the Madness Vote would apply to a minority – and yet an important one, the way the “swing” or “independent” vote is always much sought after by both parties. These voters would have consisted mainly of people who might have voted for Trump in 2016, or for a third party candidate, or who had just sat out the election. This time around, they did not sit it out, but they didn't vote for Trump either. They might have voted third party, but more likely they would have voted for Biden (with noses firmly held) just to bring America's very own domestic perpetual war to an end.

But in this they would have been mistaken, since once Biden is ensconced and the powers behind his throne take over, the real war begins – or, more accurately, the war on the middle class and on “American values” that has been gaining momentum for decades finally enters the consolidation stage, in which all who resist are hunted down and neutralized. (This process has already been announced, when it comes to members of the Trump administration and its supporters, by various and sundry Democrats and their facilitators in the media. But you can expect it to extend to broader horizons as well.) This will be a bigger war, and have more dire effects on the citizenry, than anything that has occurred over the previous five years, and will almost make them yearn for the “good old days” when all they had to worry about was Trump's collusion with Russia, Trump's racism/sexism/xenophobia, Trump's grounds for impeachment, Trump's hair and necktie and skin, etc. and the reaction of the opposition or resistance to all of these. We have seen what the opposition is capable of – all the masks have been taken off and discarded, and the agenda is completely out in the open for, perhaps, the first time in our history. And once Trump is out of the way will there be “peace in the valley”? Au contraire! The same people who have been waging all-out war on Trump will turn their sights on the citizenry – especially the middle class – especially anyone suspected of having “conservative” or “reactionary” tendencies. And they have plenty of models to choose from, from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia to Maoism in China. The major – and remarkable – difference is that this time the revolution has the full support of the ruling elite... the money class. So it will be both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum against the middle. (Advice: Figure out some way to get either very rich or extremely poor before it's too late.)

But really, hasn't this always been the dream of totalitarians the world over? Create a two-class society with a ruling elite (i.e., them) and a vast horde of faceless serfs (i.e., the rest of us), with no one in between? This is precisely what's happening in the economy right now. It's no coincidence, and no accident. And the corona pandemic is not to blame; it just served to accelerate the process by providing an excuse for totalitarian diktats. And don't expect the dismal history of various attempts to accomplish this to discourage anyone; this is, after all, a war of ideas, and actual material consequences are of little interest.

So yes, the Stop the Madness Vote may have helped take Trump down and set Biden up – but whatever it is they thought they were doing thereby may turn to crushing disappointment. But don't expect them to stand up and apologize in public; that would not be “normal”.

The Republican Party post-Trump, Revisited

When Donald Trump rides back up that escalator (figuratively at least) he will leave behind a political party that did not welcome him, never accepted him, and – I strongly suspect – is glad to see him leave and get out of their hair. He was never the head, or leader, or whatever, of the Republican Party (not that I am at all certain who was), and now that he's leaving the Republicans can settle back into their accustomed torpor, where every day is a lazy day in the steaming tropics and all that is needed is a hammock and a cold drink garnished with a rice paper umbrella. But is this the action of any sort of political party? Trump's program was their program, whether they liked it or not – and with him gone they are back to being program-less and free of ideas. How long can they survive under those conditions?

The Republicans do have a future, but just not on the national level. They will continue to be players in various redoubts across the fruited plain – not including the coasts, of course, nor various liberal enclaves in flyover country (cities controlled by Democrats plus university towns). They will enjoy dominance in some state legislatures and may be elected governors – although how much good it will do is questionable, since judges everywhere seem committed to reinforcing the “progressive” agenda at all costs (not to mention, the last gasp of state autonomy will be the upcoming elimination of the Electoral College). And they will, of course, be active at the county, small city, town, and village level. But on the national level I consider them the walking dead, and here's why.

But first a comment. Now and then someone – not necessarily a disgruntled Republican, it could be a liberal engaging in triumphalism – will contend that Donald Trump killed the Republican Party by, first, having the unmitigated gall to enter the Republican primaries in 2016, then to be nominated (aided by the Russians, no doubt – still an article of faith for the Democrats and the mainstream media), and then to be elected (ditto). And Republicans ever since then have been wringing their hands that here's this Godzilla-like creature in their midst who's ruining everything and giving Republicans a bad name, and that the country will never forgive the Republicans for having foisted Trump off on them, and that this spells doom for generations to come, et cetera.

I have a slightly different take on this. My opinion is that Trump actually saved the Republican Party from its own boring, colorless incompetence... injected new life into it (or tried to)... and kept it, basically, alive for four more years -- since it was at death's door by the end of the Obama administration, and a Hillary victory would have been the coup de grace (or coup de disgrace, whatever). The problem is that most Republicans, and especially the “never Trumpers”, would disagree with this, and contend that the party would be in much better shape now if it hadn't been forced to, somehow, go along with the bulk of Trump's initiatives, or at least not actively oppose them (with a few notable exceptions).

Party loyalty is, of course, party loyalty, not loyalty to any one person; all we have to do is go back to the Watergate era to find confirmation of that. (And at a slightly earlier time, a lot of Democrats bailed on LBJ.) But sometimes party loyalty involves compromise – doing what you have to do. And yet there were, and are, people who disagree, the foremost example having been John McCain, who took an active role in subverting the Trump administration from Day One. And Mitt Romney was, basically, McCain's understudy.

But the point is that Trump, simply by being who he is and doing what he did, at least kept the Republican “brand” on the market, even though it was an operation not unlike the process of keeping a disembodied brain alive in a jar like in some horror movie. (Except in the case of the Republicans, he was keeping a body alive without a brain – not even the “Abby Normal” brain from “Young Frankenstein”.)

So Trump gave the Republicans a new lease on life, except they didn't want it and didn't appreciate it. They would rather have been dead (as a party) than be seen as supporting Trump, as many of them said quite explicitly during the 2016 campaign. Distance from Trump = virtue and respectability was the message. He was as much an outsider to them as he was to the liberals/Democrats/progressives.

So now they get to return to the soporific creature comforts of minority status, except this time for keeps. Which means, incidentally, that the U.S. finally capitulates and converts to a one-party system on the national level, which is an inevitable characteristic of tyrannies and dictatorships everywhere, and that the Democratic primaries become the equivalent of the election, assuming that the Republicans even bother having primaries any longer. (Many states, cities, and counties already have a one-party system, and you can generally tell which they are by measuring their level of incompetence, corruption, and downright failure – not to mention less-exalted measures like the number of homeless and the incidence of fecal matter on public property.)

But why else, aside from their general demeanor and appearance, are the Republicans the walking dead? It's because they have become a minority party that can barely capture enough independent and “swing” votes to win elections, except in certain “deep red” locales. And why, in turn, is this? One reason is the power of ideas; the Democrats have them, and the Republicans don't. Say what you like about “AOC” for example, she has ideas. They may be wrong-headed, foolish, and delusional, and reflect profound ignorance, but they are ideas, and they serve to energize and inspire. And when revolution is in the air, ideas are all that count; cold reason and pragmatism can take a hike. And, of course, youth must triumph! By definition! Of course, the youth of the 1960s are now the grizzled veterans of the culture wars, whether they consider themselves to be on the winning side or not. They may have won many battles, but the culture war is still on or Trump would never have been elected.

Is there a Republican AOC out there anywhere? Some talk-show hosts might qualify, but they already have paying jobs and are not about to enter politics. We are, once again, in a time of revolution, the way we were in the 1960s, and the Young Turks in Congress are at the forefront, with the Old Guard forced to deal, cope, dither, rationalize, whatever it takes to hold on to their weakening grip on power. The 60s were not just about “sex, drugs, and rock & roll”, although those were the loss leaders. They were about more profound cultural changes, which took root then and are being promoted to new levels at the present time. Anyone who wonders when this process will stop – when it will be “mission accomplished” – has missed the concept of continuous revolution, of which the most prominent advocate was Chairman Mao, but which has plenty of lesser followers, including the present-day governments of Cuba and Venezuela (not to mention Antifa and BLM on the home front). For them, the revolution is not finished until Utopia is realized, and since Utopia can never be realized, the revolution is never over. Call it a full employment act for “agents of change”.

Another reason – and this is old news, but still – is that the Democrats are busy importing new constituents from other countries, primarily Central America but other places as well. And these people are willing to do work that Americans just won't do – namely reproduce. So... to over-generalize just a bit, you have self-sterilizing Democrats and liberal eunuchs bolstering their numbers by letting people in who have a vested interest in their programs, i.e. “benefits”. It's a smart move, for sure. And even if conservatives do have an edge when it comes to reproduction (it would be more accurate to say that traditionalists of many different kinds have an edge in that department), there's no way it can make up for what amounts to a siege from the Third World. There is a human wave – nay, a tsunami – coming across our southern border every day, and making its way even to the northernmost reaches of the land, hence the incidence of Mexican restaurants in places like Minot, North Dakota. History will record this as one of the great migrations of humanity, but it's hard to appreciate historical significance when you're getting overrun. (One consolation for those who don't believe in the American Empire is that this may be the biggest single factor in its demise; time will tell. There is, after all, a high correlation between the death of empires and said empires being overrun by aliens, although the precise order of events varies.)

Then you have good old generational differences – and, as always, the revolutionaries are on the young side and the conservatives are on the old side. This is not to say that the conservatives will one day be totally replaced by the revolutionaries, because even in the worst of times there are people who, somehow, manage to engage in rational thinking... but we are, basically, looking at a revolutionary society on the national level (a process which has been building slowly over a century at least, but which is now coming to full fruition) which will do everything in its power (which is considerable) to silence and neutralize all opposition, if not engage in its outright extermination. (As things stand, the liberals are busy exterminating themselves through abortion, which is ironic to say the least. So the race is on – do they cease to exist during or after the revolution? Time will tell. And if they do cease to exist, who keeps the revolution going? Oh, right – immigrants. But many of them are way more conservative and traditionally-minded than American liberals. So maybe irony will win in the end.)

So, to sum up, Trump arguably saved us from a headlong rush into this fate for four years. But it does seem inevitable; the long-term trends are what they are... and I haven't even touched on aggravating factors like the national debt, crony capitalism, environmental degradation, decaying infrastructure, the cost of empire, the collapse of our public education system, social media turning us all into robots, corruption in general, and so on. Everything that's happening at this time can be considered an accelerant; there are no counter-trends that I can think of.

So what we should be seeing very soon is the final death rattle of the Republicans on the national level – an event which will be celebrated far and wide, no doubt. And the conventional wisdom will be that Trump was what did it – he was the bull in the china shop, the disrupter, the destroyer. But if that's true, as Trump leaves the political stage the Republicans should expect to recover whatever respect they enjoyed before he took that fabled escalator ride. The problem with that idea is they didn't enjoy any such respect, except possibly in their own deluded world view. And remember that Trump's hard-core supporters didn't vote for him because he was a Republican; they voted for him because he was who he was. (He might even have won as an independent candidate, the way Ross Perot tried to do.) So without him to prop them up, the Republicans are going to collapse – said collapse being long overdue. And Trump's hard-core supporters will fade back into the fields and forests of flyover country, satisfied that, for one brief shining moment, their voices were heard and their values were honored. They will hunker down and wait out the revolution, hoping that one day they, or their descendants, will once again have a voice.

Kamala's Karma

 

It really does look like the Democrats are running some sort of protection racket aimed at the American public. The message is: Vote for us, get rid of Trump, and the riots will end.  Otherwise, they will continue.  Implication – the Democrats have some sort of connection with the rioters, i.e. Antifa, BLM, et al, and actually have enough influence over them to call them off at a moment's notice (the same way they can be mobilized at a moment's notice). Implication – Maybe the rioters have been working for the Democrats all along. They have certainly won the hearts of any number of Democratic mayors and governors, who look on approvingly as their own cities are trashed and burned and their citizens assaulted.

So yes, it would be tempting to predict – as some in the conservative commentariat have – that, indeed, the minute Joe Biden is inaugurated the riots will magically stop and the rioters vanish, in order to provide an instant reward to those who voted for Biden (and an “up yours” to Trump voters). And, by the way, that covid-19 will also vanish, since the main point of China causing the pandemic was to get rid of Donald Trump and put a friend of China in the White House. (Which kind of makes one wonder about all the other countries in the world that have suffered from the exact same ailment – is this their theory too, and if so how do they feel about it? How would we feel if we wound up with a pandemic that was aimed at unseating, say, the president of Botswana?)

Likewise, if the lockdowns and economic distress blamed on covid-19 were also aimed at getting rid of Donald Trump, we can expect all lockdowns and restrictions to be lifted on Inauguration Day, and the economy to spring back to life in all sectors, including employment. (Cue track of “Tomorrow” from “Annie”.)

Ah, if only it were that simple – vote for us and your troubles will be over. (Actually, this is the message liberals have been peddling for generations). But Kamala Harris isn't falling for it. Back in June she said, referring to BLM riots, “They're not gonna stop. And everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop... before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day.”

How interesting! So did she mean that even if she and Joe Biden are elected, riots will continue? And if so, to what purpose? To make Trump quit prior to Inauguration Day? (Please note that there is another drive on to forcibly remove him from office based on the 25^th Amendment.) But the riots have not had that effect up to now, why should they have it in the next 3+ months? And what would be the point, other than a primitive urge for vengeance? Plus, you get rid of Trump and you still have Mike Pence, even if only for a short time. Is that what they want?

The point is that Harris tipped her hand a bit with that statement. She's been called the most liberal member of the Senate, and is clearly the darling of pretty much every certified victim or grievance group in the country. (Her minority status is so multi-layered she had to attach a supplemental page to her driver's license application.) And right now she's in the precarious position of being Joe Biden's running mate, which means that she has to (1) hope he doesn't collapse in a heap before Inauguration Day; and (2) hope he does collapse in a heap as soon as possible after Inauguration Day. Timing is everything! She is, in short, the new superstar of the Democratic Party – not that she's above Obama on the totem pole, that would be too much to ask – but that she's at least the designated replacement for Hillary Clinton, which is no mean distinction. (And BTW, remember when they called Bill Clinton the first Black president? Hillary could have run in 2016 as the wife of the first Black president. Why didn't she think of that? Oh, wait – Michelle might have misunderstood.)

One question that comes to mind is, how about The Squad? Surely they're no more liberal than Harris; how could they be? But she has things they don't have as yet – things like experience, political seniority, and the smarts to drop out of the primaries before the first primary was held (a brilliant move which kept her from being tainted by failure, which in turn made her the best choice as Biden's running mate). (You don't think that was the deal? It seems totally obvious to me.) Plus she has a kind of gravitas – a kind of Big Nurse vibe -- whereas the Squad-ettes seem to be kind of an unstable bunch. So for now, The Squad has to wait in the wings along with the likes of Mayor Pete and Beto O'Rourke, but their day will come; they just have to try and exercise patience (not their strong suit). In the meantime, they can continue to act as firebrands and platoon leaders for the revolution.

So with that statement quoted above, Harris came right out and admitted that there is nothing temporary or situational about the current plague of urban unrest. She admitted that it's not going to stop, which is another way of saying that the revolution is on. It's on until... well, until it accomplishes its goal, which is, to cut to the chase, to turn the U.S. into a people's republic of some sort. (Think Soviet Union, except with the ruling elite made up of Silicon Valley types instead of government officials.) (I've discussed some of the difficulties with this model in previous posts, so I won't go over them again. Let's just say that our ruling elite might run into a bit of competition on the way to completely transforming our society.)

One of the many ironies of this scenario is that a key factor in its accomplishment is the election – with its subtext of people of color, victim groups, anti-phobias and anti-isms – of an old white male to the presidency – by which I mean a really old, really white male – more white than Mike Pence, if such a thing is possible. But that's... OK, think of a shoehorn. If the shoe is the seat of political power, Biden is the shoehorn and Harris is the foot. Once he's elected – once he's inaugurated – he'll be of no more use than a bulging can of tuna. Oh, he'll be allowed to sit in the Oval Office all right, and play president like George W. Bush did, but the affairs of state will go on with him or without him (and preferably the latter), Harris will be a good and faithful servant of the ruling elite, and The Squad will be kept at the ready as political attack dogs.

But the point is that the rioting and anarchy will continue because the dogs of war have been set loose. The ruling elite has decided that now's the time to make their move, and they have sent their pawns out across the American chessboard; they couldn't call them back now even if they wanted to. The riots are metastatic.  They're now occurring in places we've never heard of (next stop, Mayberry R.F.D.).  We can look forward to relative calm in the nation's capital (Harris will see to that), but outside the Beltway the strife will continue, for the simple reason that the populace has not yet been rendered sufficiently helpless and desperate – desperate enough to accept totalitarian measures and a complete overhaul of the federal government (including, but not limited to, packing the Supreme Court and eliminating the Electoral College – but even those are baby steps compared to the ultimate goal).

And, of course, when the ruling elite no longer finds Harris useful, she'll be eliminated – one way or the other – along with The Squad, Antifa, BLM, and everyone else with delusions of grandeur. History teaches that ideas make revolutions, but that pragmatism and cynicism make governments. When the radicals retire (or are removed) from the barricades the bureaucrats and cynics move in and take over. The Soviet Union was a pretty exciting place for the first few years – its siren song of secular humanism attracted any number of useful idiots from the U.S. and elsewhere. But eventually the charms of communism wore thin, and the USSR became a very gray, depressing, cold, and hungry place. Some of the true believers hung in and stayed there until they died of old age, but most returned to the U.S. and took up posts in the government or as university professors, where they went on for years describing the Soviet Union as a utopia, which they, regrettably, had to leave for reasons better left unexplained. Meantime, the hapless citizens of the USSR remained trapped there for decades – nay, a lifetime.

So as Kamala says, “Everyone beware”. (And she'd better take her own advice.)

4 More Years? Really??

One of the perennial posters that can be found in pretty much any workplace in the land is the one that reads “You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps.” I don't know if this poster is hanging in the Oval Office, but it should be. Imagine a job where – depending on your political party – you take the blame for literally all of the world's problems, and get credit for nothing. Or, on the other hand, it must be tempting when someone with Oval Office dreams sees the royal treatment presidents like Barack Obama get; in those cases they get credit for anything good that happens on the planet, and blame for absolutely nothing, even things that are a direct result of their misguided policies and programs.

The present situation fits into the first case, needless to say. And I imagine no one is more surprised than Donald Trump by how little a president can accomplish if he (or she) is opposed by Congress, the judiciary, the media, the entertainment industry, academia, the unions, multinational corporations, the E.U., globalists, and pretty much any other entity you care to name. The presidency is only as powerful as it's allowed to be, in other words; the president has no absolute, unconditional power. Even war powers, which come close to absolute, can still be thwarted if Congress withdraws funds from the military.

Now some will say that this is exactly as it should be – “balance of power” and all that. But again, it's conditional and arbitrary. With sufficient opposition, a president cannot even exercise the most basic powers explicitly set down in the Constitution, as we see in Trump's case. But with sufficient support, a president can become, for all intents and purposes, a dictator, tyrant, and war lord. This might be considered a kind of balance in the long run, but I doubt if it's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They envisioned a system that would be self-correcting without frequent trauma and without all-out war between the president and the Congress or between the president and the judiciary. So what we have now is, in effect, a post-Constitutional system which is based on raw power and not much else. Even the Supreme Court – the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional questions – has decided that pretty much anything can be read into, or out of, the Constitution, which thereby renders it no more than a symbol or fetish.

With these thoughts in mind, consider the position of Donald Trump, who inexplicably remains in office despite the most fervent efforts of people in the Executive Branch, i.e. the branch he's supposedly in charge of, to get rid of him. It's enough of a problem when a president is at knife points with the other two branches, but it's downright grotesque when members of the Executive Branch try to pull off a coup, and the madness increases all the more when we find that a significant portion of people who work in the White House itself are in on the game. It's like something right out of Shakespeare (except without the exalted language).

So far Trump is campaigning as though he really does want a second term. Maybe in his heart of hearts he has come to the realization that it's a lost cause, but he'll never admit it; that's not the way he operates. He will go down fighting, of that you may be certain. And yet he talks about the second term as though it's a real possibility. But consider – what would a second Trump term be like? Would it be an improvement on the first term, where he's been thwarted at every turn? Lest we forget, for his first two years the Republicans were in charge of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, and what good did it do? The “never Trumpers” opposed and undercut him in every way they could. And things got even worse when the Democrats took back the House in 2018. Then it was full speed ahead on impeachment for... well... it's hard to say. Just “stuff”. Just for being Donald Trump.

So it's been rough going for Trump so far, but what happens next year if the Democrats hold on to the House and take the Senate out of the weak, hesitant, palsied hands of the Republicans? If, in spite of that, Trump is somehow re-elected, he will instantly be a lame duck (worse than now, that is). For starters, Congress will have free rein to reverse, cancel, and nullify everything that Trump has managed to accomplish in his first term – as little as that is compared to what he was hoping for. The judiciary will be no more sympathetic to his cause than they have been up to now. Then we have “the usual suspects” – the media, the entertainment industry, academia, etc., who will continue their all-out war on Trump, and in fact ramp it up. And don't forget, a second impeachment was in the works until the pandemic came along, and I'm sure that it's all ready to dish up at the earliest opportunity. That, and who knows how many more wild, delusional accusations directed at Trump, his family, and the members of his administration. (Surely you don't think Trump has managed to “clean house” at the FBI, Justice Department, and State Department? The process has barely begun, and it continues to falter because the Deep State is... well, deep.) Plus, a second defeat for the Democrats would turn what has, up until now, merely been Trump Derangement Syndrome into full-blown psychosis and mass hysteria. It will not be a pretty sight. (I'm not sure how much more outfits like CNN can do other than commit mass harakiri in Lafayette Square, but I'm sure they'll think of something.) (Maybe Nancy Pelosi will tear up her birth certificate; that would be “cancel culture” at its finest.)

But wait, there's more! Don't forget the new players on the scene. The corona virus isn't going anywhere very soon – recall that the Spanish Flu lasted for over two years. And who knows what else the Chinese have up their sleeve? Corona may have been just the beta version. Then we have riots breaking out across the land, fueled by racial grievances, economic distress... infiltrated by home-grown anarchists, provocateurs, and Marxists... and aided and abetted by various governors and mayors who are, at this point, refusing offers of help from the Trump administration for the simple reason that they like the chaos; it offers all sorts of new opportunities. (And those are the same governors and mayors, by the way, who led the shutdown of the economy. Coincidence? I don't think so.) (And do you think the riots are going to end the minute Joe Biden takes the oath? Dream on. Will the Antifa hordes go back underground, saying “mission accomplished”? Right. Their mission is just getting underway.)

Then you have the U.S. military, which has taken to “murmuring” against Trump with increasing frequency. Surely they can't see him as an existential threat; he takes great pride in supporting them. What's more likely is that they have their own theories as to how foreign policy should be conducted with “force projection”, and no orange businessman with crazy hair from Manhattan is going to convince them otherwise. (In this they resemble the State Department, which considers itself above Trump on the foreign policy totem pole.) So there is great grinding of teeth whenever he's referred to as Commander in Chief; I'm amazed they haven't started picketing the White House with signs that say “Not My Commander in Chief”. (And BTW, do they really expect that life will be better under Biden? What if “Defund the Police” morphs into “Defund the Military”? Does anyone remember what happened to the military when Carter took over from Ford?)

The economic recovery (assuming there even is one) may take even longer. Then we have the new globalists – not the stodgy old bunch in the E.U. and their American collaborators, but all of the international corporations who have now cast their lot with China. Think about the visible Chinese ownership of American resources, both in China itself and in the U.S., and then imagine the magnitude of the invisible ownership; there are countless ways in which to conceal the real owners of a company, and thus to conceal its agenda above and beyond mere business. Why worry about a metaphorical tsunami racing eastward across the Pacific when there are already Chinese geysers and volcanoes bubbling up in the American heartland? And that's only on the business/economic side; whoever is president will also have to deal with Chinese military adventurism – that's assuming that said president doesn't decide to come to an agreement of some sort with China (in which case, sayonara Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.). (We fought with Japan for control over the Pacific and eventually won, at great cost. Are we up for a repeat performance with China? My tendency is to doubt it.)

So yes, you would have to be crazy to want that job in these times – either to be re-elected or to be elected. And yet we have Trump, and Biden, and any number of Democrat also-rans who can't wait to cozy up to Old Uncle Joe, figuring he'll be carted off to “the home” not far into his first term and that will be their chance to take over. So rest assured, no matter who you vote for in November you'll be voting for someone who is at least delusional, if not an outright lunatic.

Bill & Hillary & Jeff & Ghislaine – Consider the Possibilities

There's something about this Ghislaine Maxwell thing that doesn't pass the smell test. For one thing, the FBI had apparently been tracking her for months, and they finally arrested her in her own home in New Hampshire. And all sorts of people in the area had known she was there; she was, in effect, hiding in plain sight. She hadn't even considered it necessary to flee to some other country with one of her handful of passports.

Was this slow-walked, and if so why? (It reminds me of that bin Laden business where they said he had to be buried at sea because it's a Muslim custom. Tilt!) So... let's take this brief opportunity between her apprehension and her suicide in a New York City jail to give this some thought.

It's been pointed out that in an election year, everything is political, and this event is no exception. In fact, it might turn out to be the most political event of the year. I mean, how can a scandal that touches on members of the ruling elite not be political? And this is why Maxwell has to be considered a marked woman. She'd have been better off staying in that county jail in New Hampshire and being watched over by Barney Fife than turned over to the tender mercies of the Metropolitan Detention Center.

So the initial question would be, what is the impact of Maxwell's arrest? Who, or what, benefits, and who, or what, does not benefit? Or to put it another way, who stands to lose the most if Maxwell decides to plea bargain and spill a few beans? And to answer that question, we have to, for starters, ask who built up the most frequent flyer miles on Epstein's private jet? The envelope, please. Right! Bill Clinton! And anything that shines a spotlight on him inevitably shines a spotlight on... forget the envelope... Hillary Clinton! This is the way things are. She attached herself to Bill Clinton's coattails decades ago, benefited greatly from doing so – including being able to claim that she was “co-president” – so it's only fair that her choice should come back to bite her now, the way it did when Trump trotted out a group of Bill Clinton's (alleged) victims before a debate with Hillary. Karma happens, right?

But now wait – if Maxwell has the potential to inflict damage on Bill Clinton and therefore on his enabler and protector of many decades, namely Hillary – why did the FBI pick this particular time to bring her in? After all, they are no friends of Donald Trump. But that is precisely the point. I have said for lo these many months that if Joe Biden started to seriously falter, that would be Hillary's signal to jump into the race to save the day, wresting the nomination away from Good Old Uncle Joe and running for a second time against Trump, aaaand.... losing again. Or at least having a much higher chance of losing than Biden, whose handlers seem to have decided that his best bet is a non-campaign.

Have I connected the dots yet? (1) The Deep State, of which the FBI is a charter member, does not want a second Trump term. (2) If Hillary took over the Democratic nomination, she might well lose again, which would mean a second Trump term. (3) If Biden remains in the race, the way things look now he will beat Trump quite handily, even if he (Biden) has to be wheeled into the Democratic Convention in an oxygen tent. (4) Ergo, your mission, Mr. Phelps, is to take out Hillary Clinton before she gets a chance to push Biden aside. And (5) the most efficient and effective way of doing that is to get Ghislaine Maxwell to spill the beans on Bill Clinton and his facilitators, including you-know-who. And (6) now's the time! It might not have mattered up until now, when Joe Biden still had two brain cells to rub together, but it matters now. And if we wait, it might be too late.

Another way of putting it is that the FBI was keeping the lovely and gracious Ghislaine in reserve, to be brought out only if, and when, sorely needed. So that answers the questions of why now, and why not sooner. Remember, in an election year everything is political. If a president's choice of medication is political, what can escape? I'm sure they'd be out there condemning his shoe size if they knew what it was. So this is going to be interesting. And... it might also be an insurance policy of sorts for Ghislaine herself. Nobody wanted Jeffrey Epstein kept alive, that's clear. But times change. Maxwell may be the very resource the Deep State is looking for, which means that her chances of survival are far greater than those of old Jeff. But we shall see.

(Please note also in all of this that it contradicts the theory that Hillary is, in fact, in charge of the Deep State. For one thing, that's Obama's job title. And for another, she and Bill may have finally moved into the “expendable” column in the Deep State's accounting ledgers. If so, it's not a minute too soon.)

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.