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.

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.

Populism, Then and Now

A while back, I put up a blog post dealing with populism, and pointing out that the populist mantle has now been assumed by both the left and the right – although the term “populist” seems, most of the time, to be restricted to descriptions of the right, and not necessarily complimentary. You can find the blog post here: https://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2017/06/whose-populism-is-it-anyway.html

But what is populism? Rather than get into poly-sci theory, because most populists aren't theoreticians, let's just say that “populism” is what happens when a large portion of the citizenry starts feeling left out. Left out, neglected, ignored... mocked and derided... exploited... persecuted, even. This is clearly what energized Trump's “base” during the 2016 campaign, and what continues to energize his supporters. They basically felt that the people in charge – the ruling elite – had written them off, forgotten them, chosen to ignore them... and they were perfectly correct. But at the same time, there was an equally malcontent group on the left, including supporters of Bernie Sanders, who felt pretty much the same way. But how can this be? Part of the answer – as we see more clearly than ever with the results of the Democratic primaries – is that the mainstream, or “moderate”, Democrats had no more use for the true radicals – the “democratic socialists” – than did the conservatives. In politics, and especially with our one-party system that masquerades as a two-party system, the worst thing you can do is rock the boat. Things as they stand are the result of years – decades! – of fine-tuning... of a balancing act that puts the Wallendas to shame. Most of the opposition and controversy between the Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than a kabuki dance to gull the citizenry into thinking there is Something Really Important going on... something fraught with principles, morals, firmly-held beliefs. Whereas in practice, after putting on a farce on the floors of Congress our elected representatives retire to the nearest watering hole and slap each other on the back with cries of “Good show!” and “We fooled 'em again!” and so on.

But this is precisely what populists of either the left or the right are protesting. They are tired of business as usual... of every election resulting in the new boss being just like the old boss... and mainly of feeling chronically out of the loop, exploited, taken for granted, overtaxed and underrepresented. So when this feeling reaches critical mass – which it does roughly once in every generation – you wind up with a “populist” movement of some sort.

This phenomenon could be traced, in American history, all the way back to the Revolution, except that in that case it was more like the landowning elite enlisting the aid of the common people to make good their decision to split off from England. Anything that is birthed among the elite can hardly be termed populism in the strict sense. Many years later, we had the Progressive movement, which had some of the markers of populism, except that this time it was an invention of the intellectual, humanist elite – and its flaws were brought out in sharp relief when Woodrow Wilson – a progressive of the first order – got us into World War I and then became a dictator on the domestic front. (So much for intellectual college professors, especially those of the Ivy League persuasion.)

But the first blush of populism in our history, unless you include the Whiskey Rebellion, was the movement called Jacksonian Democracy. And then, just as now, “the people” rose up in protest that the country was being run by an elite (made up of wealthy landowners, bankers, merchants, transportation moguls, and the like) for their own benefit. And while the era of Jacksonian Democracy may not have lasted intact for very long, it set a tone, and the dynamics of populism were established to appear again and again (while being suppressed at other times) right up to the present day. One can talk about historical cycles, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, etc., and the history of populism fits the model.

The question about populism as a movement, or cultural meme, is not why it arises from one generation to the next – that's obvious -- but why it fades – why it seems to go away. One reason is that other events intervene – either accidentally or by intention – and war is a prime example. The Progressive Era came to a screeching halt when we got into World War I – ironic, since going "over there" and fighting in a war that should never have started in the first place was Wilson's idea, and he was a died-in-the-wool progressive, as I mentioned above. The New Deal, likewise, had to be put on hold when World War II broke out. (Some will say that the New Deal ended with World War II, but all you have to do is wander along the Mall in D.C. and gaze at all of the New Deal-era government buildings, which are still intact and which house the very same agencies that were established in the 1930s by FDR. And some of these agencies and programs were only established on an “emergency” basis in order to deal with the Depression. So why are they still gobbling up billions of dollars each year 80+ years later? Don't ask...) The Great Society – not a grass-roots movement by any means, but certainly designed to appeal to populist sentiments – hit an iceberg called Vietnam. And so on. This is one of the great ironies of America – the greatest, perhaps. Our ideational founding set the stage for ever more “progressive” domestic policies, but at the same time planted the seed of empire building. It's the old “guns vs. butter” question, and at any given time we have to choose, because we can't have both – not in abundance, even by increasing the national debt to stratospheric levels. War may be “the health of the state”, but it's the death of all economic sectors not directly involved in supporting the war effort. And on those rare occasions when a war ends and prosperity breaks out, we soon become restless and start looking for another one to either initiate or get involved in. We are – let's face it – a warlike people, and we have to accept the consequences (either that or engage in massive denial, which is the more common response). We marvel at the economic and social achievements of countries in Northern and Western Europe, and wonder – if they can do it, why can't we? Well... they don't stagger around with the heavy chains of perpetual war hanging from their shoulders, and they're no longer spending their wealth establishing, maintaining, or defending empires. They might even have learned a lesson from World War II; who knows? In any case they've managed to avoid pretty much any serious direct involvement in wars ever since (with the exception of France, if you want to talk about Algeria and Indochina), whereas we have been on a war footing the whole time, and have, since 9-11, explicitly adopted a perpetual war policy (one of the few things both the major parties can agree on). (Ironically, we spend money on military preparedness so the Europeans don't have to. Any questions on who actually won that war?)

To return to the populism thread – another major instance of genuine, up-from-the-grass-roots populism was the response to the Great Depression and the enthusiastic support for the New Deal by the “forgotten man”. Even then, there were plenty of “agents of change” stirring up the citizenry – said agents being, in many cases, real agents, i.e. of Stalin and the Soviets. But it was populism in that the people found a voice, and applied it in a political way, and the system responded – perhaps more readily then than at any time since. (It's important to remember that capitalism – however defined – was in severe disfavor at that time, and that it was widely felt that the future lay with some form of socialism. The leading contenders were Soviet-style socialism, AKA communism; German-style socialism, AKA Nazism; and American-style socialism, AKA the New Deal. Make no mistake – World War II was not about capitalism vs. anything else, it was about which form of socialism would emerge triumphant. And since both we and the Soviets were on the winning side, it had to take 45 more years before a victor emerged from the Cold war, namely us – but by that time socialism had become controversial, and not something to simply be accepted without question.)

Fast forward to the 1960s. The hippie/anti-war/anti-draft movement had a populist flavor, but it had a limited agenda and was also the province of a fairly narrow age group (albeit under the considerable influence of left-wing academicians both here and abroad, and undoubtedly aided by some “dark money” from the Soviet Union). Plus, the establishment at that time was pretty much united behind the war, from the conservatives (American empire, and war is good for business) to the liberals (since it was started by JFK, a liberal icon, and escalated by LBJ, hardly an icon but nonetheless a hero when it came to domestic policy). (If you want further proof, look at what happened to the anti-war Democratic candidates in 1968.) If the only people out on the streets protesting are “dirty, drug-crazed hippies” and a few wild-haired professors, it's not going to impress anyone. I think in the long run the cultural impact of the 60s was much greater than the political impact, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The culture war was won by the anti-establishment types, but the foreign policy chickens haven't yet come home to roost. (Some will contend that 9-11 was a major piece of push-back, but that's assuming the establishment narrative is true, and really, what are the chances?)

But at the same time – actually a bit earlier – we had the Goldwater campaign, which can be seen as the very first blush of conservative populism, i.e. conservatism not limited to polysyllabic eggheads like William F. Buckley Jr. Goldwater was, as we all know, crushed and ground into fine powder by the LBJ machine, the media, and all of the other usual suspects that are still on the front lines today. But he paved the way in a sense – at least making it semi-respectable to be a home-grown conservative without an array of think-tank appointments and framed advanced degrees hanging on the wall.

But – you might ask – why was this significant? Why then? Wasn't the country as a whole still fairly conservative in its thinking at that time? And it was, compared to now. But the culture war had already shifted into a higher gear... the lid of the cultural Pandora's Box had been lifted just a crack... and people were starting to be afraid that “their” country – the one they had grown up in and were used to – was under assault. And, lest we forget, the war in Vietnam was getting off the ground at that point, and the civil rights movement was in high gear, and so the cultural fault lines were starting to stand out in sharp relief. All of a sudden it was the young vs. the old, conservative vs. liberal, black vs. white, male vs. female, freedom (however defined) vs. liberty (however defined), and so on. So Goldwater represented a return to that which was old and reliable and secure – to a nostalgic, sepia-tinted time that may never have existed, but which had great power as an icon. It was the first reaction, in other words, of people who had always taken things for granted, but who now saw the revolution coming over the hill. So while the left at that time claimed to represent “the people”, the populist conservative movement also claimed to represent “the people”. And they were both right; the difference was in their constituencies. (And please note, in that case as in all cases each side claims to represent the real people as opposed to the other side, which is made up of – pick as many as you like – reactionaries, collaborators, socialists, communists, religious fanatics, drug and/or sex addicts, traitors, fools, the gullible, the easily-persuaded, anti-intellectuals, intellectuals, people who are pro-science, people who are anti-science, etc. etc.)

So populism suffered a stunning blow in 1964, but it didn't go away. It returned in full force in 1980 with Reagan's election, and yes, he won at least in part due to Carter's towering incompetence, but it was also because the grass roots from the Goldwater debacle arose, bloodied but unbowed, to give it another try. And they felt duly rewarded for their efforts – so much so that they were willing to support George H. W. Bush in 1988, even though he was a charter member of the ruling elite with nary a populist bone in his body. Then we had Clinton's “vacation from history” when populism took a vacation as well because the 8-year soap opera that was the Clinton administration was much more interesting... and then we had the Bush II administration which was based entirely on a single event, namely 9-11... but then populism returned on the other side with Obama. And it was the blatant triumphalism of Obama and his supporters that paved the way for Trump – action, reaction. But at the same time, there were people for whom Obama's brand of liberalism wasn't good enough, and they became Bernie supporters. Even when Bernie caved to Hillary in 2016, they remained loyal, and when he caved again to Biden, well... we'll see how that plays out at the Democratic convention. (My question is, will Antifa be there, and if so, whose side will they be on?) Right now the Bernie-ites are licking their wounds, but they may yet turn the 2020 convention into the 1968 convention redux, which would at least be mildly amusing before we slouch into the brain-dead Biden era.

When it comes to populist movements – of which there have been plenty, as we see – it's always tempting to assign scores, or ratings, as to which ones were more radical, i.e. anti-mainstream and anti-establishment, which ones lasted the longest, and which ones had greater impact. It strikes me that we're still “enjoying” (if that is the word) the fruits of Progressivism 100 years later – including, I might add, the fruits of empire, and make no mistake, these are intimately linked. The New Deal expanded government far beyond the wildest dreams of the Progressives, and established, once and for all, the Deep State, which is still very much with us and getting bigger every day. In fact, it has been argued that the Deep State has, for all intents and purposes, supplanted the presidency, and I believe this is true in many respects. But it also depends on their relationship at the time. Obama, in addition to being The Anointed One and being crowned king, was also the head of the Deep State, and is even now considered its head emeritus. Trump, on the other hand, has been at war with the Deep State ever since he announced his candidacy. But in a sense this supports the argument. If, in Obama's case, the presidency and the Deep State were one and the same, then you clearly don't need both. And if, in Trump's case, the presidency and the Deep State don't overlap to the slightest degree, then it makes more sense to get rid of one and keep the other. A house divided against itself cannot stand, etc.

After that brief – ahem! – introduction, we come up to the present day, when an interesting phenomenon is taking place. We have the pandemic, and the government's reaction to it, which is to basically shut down the entire economy until further notice. And then we have the reaction to that. Now, the latter reaction is a spontaneous, grass-roots movement if anything ever was. There is no charismatic leader, no money behind it (How could there be? Everyone's out of work.), and coverage by the mainstream media is entirely negative, and the social media are censoring all attempts to organize protests and start petitions. You might say it has all the earmarks of an underground movement except that it's just the opposite – it's above ground and out in the streets. What they're objecting to is that those in charge want them to stay underground (or behind closed doors). But at the same time there's a very strong, and vocal, social movement in favor of the restrictions, and I don't think they're all working for the government; they're grass-roots as well, and – I'm sure – convinced that what they're doing (admonishing, enforcing, tattling) is what's good for the community. It is, if you will, a civil war which is being fought on Facebook and Twitter. (Better that than with guns and cannons, I guess.)

There are, of course – as with everything else these days – political correlates. The obedient ones tend to be liberal and authoritarian, and cheering for Fauci and Birx, and whatever they consider to be “science”. The rebels tend to be conservative and on the side of Trump. So the fact that Trump and his brain trust appear on the same stage for hours every evening has to be causing a bit of cognitive dissonance whiplash.

The one thing that the two sides in the current controversy have in common is fear – and fear stoked by, no surprise, the government and the media. One side is scared to death of dying, and the other is scared to death of the spectre of unemployment and poverty. Some in government (at all levels) are trying to pull off a balancing act (the Wallendas again) and come up with a formula that will satisfy both sides, but I think this is an exercise in futility. If they go all in for health and safety, they're going to be blamed when the Second Great Depression hits, and if they go all in for the economy, they're going to be blamed every time someone sees a hearse rolling down the street. So they can't win, and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes for all the tea in China. But hey, they campaigned for this job, they wanted it in the worst way, and sure enough they got it in the worst way.

If you want to talk about Trump himself, history will remember him primarily as the guy who was in office when everything changed. There will be plenty of blame and credit to go around, but at least the entire impeachment drive will fade into oblivion by comparison, and rather than finish out his time as a lame duck Trump will be able to think of himself as a brand-new kind of war president, and that may convince him that it was all worthwhile. I mean, who knows, he may even get his face on a stamp some day; now that would be something!

Obama's Greatest Achievement

I know not what historians will say, but it strikes me that Barack Obama's greatest achievement and contribution to the general welfare -- of not only America but the world – was to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House (as president, that is – vs. as former “co-president”).

“Huh?”, you might say? “How so?” Well, think about it. Back in 2008 (how soon we forget) Hillary was the “inevitable” Democratic nominee, and thus the inevitable winner. All it would take was pointing out George W. Bush and his cronies' crimes and offenses (of which there were many, let's admit) and she would be made president by general acclaim; she wouldn't even have to campaign. In fact, there wouldn't even have to be an election! That's how much of a “shoo-in” she was.

But then along came this Obama character out of left field (pun intended). He cut in line in front of her, and she and her cronies were, well, dumbstruck and paralyzed. How could they possibly object to a charismatic black man running for president on their party's ticket? It was, for many of them, a dream come true; it was just unfortunate timing is all. So... well, to put it bluntly, “black” trumped “woman”. One aggrieved minority beat another to the punch. Of the two victim groups that were all primed to shout “it's our turn”, one wound up shouting and the other wound up biting its knuckles.

Needless to say, in 2012 it would have been the height of folly for Hillary, or any other Democrat, to challenge Obama. On what basis? After all, he had won the Nobel Peace Prize the day he took office, or thereabouts... he had healed racial strife in America... and he had ended George W. Bush's unjust wars. Oh, and he had saved the economy, and thus America and the free world. (This all really happened, didn't it? I mean, they all said so, and who am I to argue?) So he was a hard act to follow and no one chose to try.

Then along comes 2016, and it really, truly, and finally was Hillary's turn. They promised her all of that and more back in 2008 if she would just cool it and take the State Department as a consolation prize (a nice move on Obama's part, by the way – how much damage could she do, and even if she did any, it would all happen overseas, and who cares about all those ragheads anyway?). And besides, the Republicans were in manifest disarray, and apparently well on their way to nominating some tacky TV personality and thus insuring their demise as a party. But what Hillary's people didn't count on was the Obama Legacy – not the one he claims but the real one -- you know, the one that included rule by executive order, elitism, snobbery, waging war against Christians (and on traditional/family values), open contempt for the white working class (and for whites and the middle class in general), endless griping about “talk radio” and Rush Limbaugh, harassing his opponents with the help of the IRS, foreign policy catastrophes, ObamaCare (a new high in totalitarianism)... and the list went on.

And no, I'm not talking about Hillary's blunders as a candidate, the plot against poor old Bernie Sanders, Benghazi, e-mails, Anthony Weiner, tarmac pow-wows, etc.. Those were annoyances, for certain, but I think she could have survived those just as she survived all of the scandals prior to 1992 and during her husband's administration. What she could not survive was Obama, and his administration, and his attitudes, which people had good reason to believe would simply be extended another four (or eight) years by Hillary.

(My theory was that Hillary's first term would be Obama's third term in domestic policy, but George W. Bush's third term in foreign policy – the worse of all possible worlds, in other words.)

(But – you might say – wouldn't her first term more likely have been Bill Clinton's third term? After all, she was “co-president” then. No, and here's why. Bill Clinton is not a theorist, and he's not an ideologue, Sure, he mouthed the usual Democratic/collectivist/socialist talking points all along the way, but the reality was that all he ever wanted in life was to be president, and once he became president, he basically ran out of ideas (at least of the governmental kind). Between that and a fortunate “vacation from history” during his term in office, he was able to more or less coast. Hillary, on the other hand, is a true believer – in herself above all, but also in all of the bedrock liberal notions that have accumulated over the years in spite of all contradictory evidence and experience. So she would have governed more in the Obama mode – or, if you like, even the FDR mode, but with much less justification.) (“If it ain't broke, don't fix it” was said by no liberal, ever.)

So, I say again, Obama deserves this much credit, at least. He did indeed save America, but not in the way he claims. And for this I believe he deserves our gratitude. Or, at least... OK, if he gives back that Nobel Peace Prize we'll call it even.

If the Republicans win in 2016...

... all sorts of terrible things will happen. This is just a partial list. (You're welcome to add anything else that merits concern.)

1. Racial strife will instantly return to the country. Obama was elected in 2008 partially based on the premise that he, as our first black president, would end racial strife in the U.S. Just the fact of having a black man as president would suffice to usher us into a new world of peace and understanding... and the few stubborn hold-outs would eventually be brought into the fold by The Anointed One's persuasive powers. And sure enough, Obama has eliminated racial strife in America by seeing to it that black citizens each get their share of the “pie”, and more besides, as compensation for past offenses. His inspired leadership has turned everyone – black and white, male and female, gay and straight, etc. -- into equally good citizens. A Republican victory in 2016 would, however, constitute a serious setback to all of these advances, and run the risk of returning to the Dark Ages of hate, prejudice, hostility, and violence.
   
   
2. Likewise, sexual discrimination will instantly return to the country. As was the case with racial strife, Obama's promise to make women equal to men in all respects, both economic and legal, has been fulfilled, even without the help of an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. Obama has bravely exercised executive power wherever he sees discrimination in any form, or unequal outcomes, or even the appearance of unequal outcomes. The result is that we have a satisfied and enlightened citizenry who have thrown off all dogmatic and traditional shackles of the past. 
   
   
3. Homelessness will instantly return to the country. Barack Obama is, like many previous Democratic presidents, a miracle worker, in that homelessness in this country disappeared the minute he took office. How do we know this? Why, because the subject hasn't been brought up in the media ever since that date. As far as one can tell, all of the homeless found homes on Inauguration Day 2009, and no one has become homeless since, because of the generous government benefits and overall prosperity that resulted from Obama taking office.
   
   
4. Marijuana will become illegal again, in every place and for any purpose.
   
   
5. We will renew our lifelong commitment to the total boycott of Cuba. (But besides that, our foreign policy will remain basically unchanged, i.e. dominated by neocons.)
   
   
6. “Judeo-Christianity” will be declared the official state religion (by executive order, so as not to run into Constitutional difficulties, based on the example set by Barack Obama).
   
   
7. “The rich”, AKA “the wealthy”, AKA “the 1%” will once again be in charge of domestic and economic policy, as opposed to the democratic, populist criteria championed by Obama. 
   
   
8. Golf will, once again, be looked down on by the liberal and media elite as the game of greedy capitalists (rather than a harmless recreational game, as it has been known as long as Obama was playing it).
   
   
9. Excessive presidential travel (including travel by any member of the “first family”) will once again be considered extravagant, wasteful, elitist, and anti-populist (not to mention the carbon footprint issue).
   
   
10. There's a high probability that the “second White House” will, once again, be a ranch. Obama and his family, on the other hand, prefer to save the taxpayers money by staying with billionaire friends whenever on the road. 
    
    
11. The first lady will be engaged in superficial, meaningless, laughable “projects”, unlike those of Michelle Obama, which are meticulously thought out and respond to basic core human needs.
    
    
12. The president's children (if any) will, once again, be a bunch of drunks, drug addicts, airheads, and losers. (This also applies to assorted other relatives, who may or may not be lodged in the White House attic.)

That's the list as it stands at present – but who knows, there may be more. In any case, you can't say you weren't forewarned.

One Man, One Vote -- No, Really

The latest pronouncement from The Anointed One – who must still be punch-drunk from the beating he got from Bibi – has to do with voting. As in, voting in elections, by citizens. He seems to be advocating obligatory voting, which would put it in the same category as filing one's income tax return (or actually more so, since not everyone has to file). His reasoning (so-called)? It would get rid of the “corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections” (quote from the AP article). Really? Well, let's see – what exactly does “money” do to elections, anyway? It buys advertising, I guess – and how can that be bad? Well, it can be bad if one side has more money than the other, which means that the richer side can buy more ads, and thus influence more people's decisions as to (1) whether to vote, and (2) whom to vote for. Or, another way of putting it is that people with bad ideas, but more money, will inevitably win out over people with good ideas but less money. As if increasing the absolute amount of exposure to bad ideas somehow enhances their acceptability (which, I guess, is true if we're talking about The Big Lie and other, smaller lies).

You know, frankly, I've never been convinced that advertising plays all that decisive a role in elections. People vote a certain way because their parents did... or because they feel that everyone else in their racial/ethnic/economic/gender group is voting a certain way... or because of what they read, hear, or see in the actual news, as opposed to in campaign ads. They “vote their pocketbook” above everything else, but can also be influenced by ideas (if simplistically presented), ideals, and, yes, guilt. Not to mention, of course, candidates' personalities and personal traits and habits – and here, I suppose, information (including libel and slander) could be relevant.

I'm not saying that propaganda doesn't have an effect, only that it has to compete with any number of other factors – personal, political, sociological, etc. A member of a hard-core constituency could hear 3 or 4 hours per day of ads for the other side, and it wouldn't change his or her mind. And “independents” are more likely to see the big picture rather than falling for ham-handed political ads. And in the case of incumbents, memory is always a useful tool – especially memory of what they promised the last time around, versus what they actually delivered.

Plus, Obama seems to be implying that “money” is always on the side of the eeeevil Republicans. Not true! The Democrats have become the party of both the poor and the rich. Wall Street and the “banksters” cynically donate money to each party in about equal amounts, for obvious reasons. So the money argument is bogus – not entirely but nearly so.

What else could he mean, then? “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.” OK, that's a bit closer to the truth. If it's really true that non-voters tend to be “younger, lower-income and... immigrants or minorities” (AP quote) then it's a blatant attempt to further expand the Democrat power base by getting all of its constituents to the polls. And this is the angle that the conservative commentariat (AKA talk radio) has focused on. Well... it may be true, but Obama should be careful what he wishes for. A lot of “minorities” are very traditional in their thinking and may turn out to be more in tune with the Republicans (as in the case of the Cuban exiles in Florida). And as for the young? Are they really enchanted with the likes of Hillary Clinton? I'd be surprised if that were the case. She doesn't talk their language any more than the Republicans do – less, in some cases, if we're talking about some of the more young and dynamic Republicans, not to mention the libertarians. Plus, she looks like the meanest teacher they ever had in public school.

Another cautionary note (for liberals) is what I call the “disgust factor”. More and more people are staying away from the polls simply because they see nothing to choose from among the candidates, who they consider to be rogues, schemers, and fools. No argument there! But if they were forced to vote, are there any guarantees as to whom they would vote for? If forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, which typical Democratic or Republican candidate would come out ahead? The liberals, in all of their delusions, always feel that they are born to rule simply because of their enlightened attitudes and humanism... but it's clear that the citizenry do not always agree. And this is particularly true with regard to foreign policy, where the tendency of red-blooded Americans is to vote for the guy who will teach those rag-heads a damn good lesson rather than “negotiate” or “dialog”.

But having said all of that, I prefer to, as usual, dig a bit deeper. My first thought when I read the headline “mandatory voting” was those old pictures and newsreels of the Supreme Soviet in the grand old USSR days. Row upon row of stone-faced delegates would raise their hands in unison when asked to vote on the latest scheme proposed by the strong man – be it Stalin or Khrushchev or any of those other guys. And it was always unanimous! Never was heard a dissenting word. The perfect model of a socialist Utopia, where everyone thinks exactly alike because all have achieved ultimate wisdom through the remaking of human nature by the state, using all the tools at its disposal (including eliminating troublemakers). Is this not the dream of every socialist? And is it not, therefore, the dream of any liberal... any Democrat... any president named Obama? Of course it is. He wakes up every morning from this dream of perfect unanimity, only to find himself, once again, bogged down in that most feared of all things – actual democracy, with all of its aggravations, headaches, and discontents. But he has hope! Yes – hope and change. (It's alive!) If only he could convince Congress – or himself, by means of executive order – to compel everyone to troop off to the polls on every Election Day, like the gray masses in “Metropolis”, and vote – and vote for him! -- then life would be good, at long last.

It all sounds so good – so idealistic. (I can visualize the posters now, done up in the best totalitarian style, with muscular men and fecund women all straining toward a monumental building in Art Deco style with a sign reading “VOTE HERE (or else)”.) But it would also mean the end of democracy – and I mean the absolute end, game over. Why? Well, for one thing, the “right to vote” also implies the right not to vote. You can't have one without the other. If voting becomes an obligation, it's no longer a right. Imagine anyone talking about the “right” to pay one's income tax. (Cue laugh track on maximum volume.) Also, any country where the populace is trooped off to vote under the watchful eye of the police (well, how else would you do it?) is rightfully considered a tyranny, and the voting a mere sham – an exercise of egotism on the part of the ruling elite, who will do as they please no matter who votes or how they vote. We laugh at the farcical “elections” in places like North Korea; we'd be better off biting our tongues.

Another way of saying this is that when everyone votes, nobody votes. I mean, they may go to the polls and cast their ballots, but it's pathetic, since the candidates have been chosen by the Regime and, at least half the time, the outcome is already determined. Muhammad Ali had his “bum of the month club”, and we have the “face in a suit of the year/2 years/4 years club”. The Regime pops these people out like McDonald's pops out Big Macs – but they are all serving the same master, and nothing the hapless populace does or doesn't do, including voting, makes the slightest difference. This is already the case, at least on the national level, but at least one can protest the fact by not voting. If we are all forced to vote, then we are all forced to indicate, by that act, that democracy is still alive and well, even though we know better.  We have then become, like the citizens of any totalitarian state, the greatest of liars -- to each other, but mostly to ourselves.

So what I'm saying is that mandatory voting, if it ever becomes law, will be the official death knell of democracy. And yes, it's paradoxical, but in that it does not differ from so many other phenomena in our time. The more we talk about rights, the more of them we lose – and whatever “right” is the leading topic of conversation on any given day is the one most recently lost. Yes, voting is pathetic... an empty exercise... but it's still one of the few symbolic acts we have left to salvage our self-respect. If they make it obligatory, they will take even that away.

A Red Letter Day

The Republican senators' letter to Iran is a curious document – not only because of the circumstances involved but because of all the delusional and wishful thinking it contains. If it was supposed to be a civics lesson for the mullahs, it has failed in that mission. Consider, first, the letter as composed:


An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

The following version (which I urged the worthy senators to use, but to no avail) would have been more accurate, and more edifying not only to the leaders of Iran but to the American public:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our formerly constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you might want to consider for your own amusement as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. This quaint notion predates the point at which the presidency became, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship. Not that Congress doesn't still ratify treaties; it's just that it makes no difference what Congress does, since the administration will conduct foreign affairs as it pleases anyway. 
 
In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. Again, this is strictly a formality designed to provide some semblance of purpose to an otherwise impotent and obsolete body. The president can come to any agreements, both overt and covert, with any government at any time, and the same applies to breaking agreements. The Senate's role varies along a continuum from mute passivity to helpless rage. 
 
A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement – which, under our current system, has exactly the same weight as anything approved by Congress, especially since it can be backed up by the military, which is under the sole command of the president.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms, and in fact many of them have what amounts to a lifetime appointment, not to be terminated for any cause, including senility and insanity. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades. There is no way to get rid of us, since all election laws overwhelmingly favor incumbents, which is not surprising since it was incumbents who wrote and passed those laws. 
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. This will, of course, have no bearing on how the president sees any such agreement, nor on how it is interpreted or enforced.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could attempt to modify the terms of the agreement at any time. The success of any such attempt will, of course, be entirely contingent on the whims of whoever is president.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our formerly constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

For further reading, please refer to the extensive writings of President Obama, formerly a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

We Are Not Worthy

Yesterday, March 3, 2015 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the President of the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Prime Minister of the State of Israel. The United States was at peace with that nation and....

OK, OK, enough with the FDR imitation already. And I'm not sure that 3/3/15 will live in infamy; there are so many other dates clamoring for that distinction in our times. But it was certainly a milestone of sorts. It did not represent a sea change in our relationship with Israel; what it did represent, however, was Israel's – or at least its prime minister's – overt and unambiguous declaration that they are in charge of our foreign policy, no matter what any silly-ass president or his pathetic acolytes in Congress might think. Netanyahu not only called Obama out, but he told it like it is, and demanded that Congress fall into line and agree with him – which they did, by the way, in a show of obsequiousness that set a new high (or low). Not that there's anything new about this either, since that was accomplished decades ago, but on this occasion the prime minister openly acknowledged the facts of the matter and pretty much dared anybody to object.

And of course there will be a reconciliation, and an “all is forgiven” golden glow will descend on the whole affair, and history will be rewritten to show “no daylight” between us and Israel. So in that sense it doesn't matter... but the fact will remain. Bibi has bearded the lion (so to speak) in his den, and there will be no backing off from that – no spin, no “clarification”. The prime minister chose his words with exquisite care; there was nothing offhand or spontaneous about them. He made his position plain, he made it plain that it was Israel's position, and he made it plain that he didn't much care what Obama or his stooges think, because, quite frankly, they don't count. (The truth is, even Congress doesn't count – but the exercise was valuable as an affirmation of Israel's power base. The standing ovations tell you all you need to know about that.)

Well, Obama is a lame duck – a lot lamer than he was on Monday! -- but so what? He's been insulted by Netanyahu before, and undoubtedly will be again. And he doesn't dare return blow for blow; he is as helpless as a Supreme Court justice sitting like a bump on a log while the president gives a State of the Union address brimming with insults directed at the Court (which is why some of the justices have decided to boycott said annual exercise until further notice). Maybe now he knows how it feels.

So nothing will change. We will continue to pour resources into the Middle East in endless wars, unto and beyond bankruptcy. We will continue to incur the wrath of the Islamic world, and the derision of most of the rest. We will continue to “stand with Israel” in splendid isolation. And yet... one can't help but think that a milestone has been passed. Gone are the days of subtlety and subversion; from here on it's in-your-face, mano a mano. But at the same time, it's refreshing; everything is right out in the open, and we can now decide if this is what we want, or if we would prefer something else (not that what “we” decide will make much difference). The main point is that from here on out no one can claim ignorance, and no one can feign shock the next time Israel abuses its infinite privileges with the U.S., its leadership, its military, and it's citizens.

It would be tempting to dwell just on the more amusing and ironic aspects of all of this; they certainly made my day. (Feinstein and Pelosi both having hissy fits? Please.) But those aren't the sorts of things that usually echo down through history. What does do this is major world events and political forces – and yet we all too rarely get to see them in plain sight; these events are as rare as total eclipses. For this alone we should thank the prime minister; he has shown us... well, not necessarily the truth about Iran and its perceived threats, but the truth about our relationship with our “eternal ally”. That, and at least one truth about our political leadership – that they are infantile, and as mindless as a gang of yobs at a soccer game.

Why That Rudy is so Rude

What, Obama not a patriot? I won't hear of it! Doesn't love America? Balderdash and pooh. He absolutely loves America. Or... he would, if he could only succeed in transforming it into the country it ought to be (and should always have been) – basically a vast horde of helpless, mindless, thumb-sucking serfs, afraid of their own shadows and totally dependent on government for everything, with him in charge. This is, and has always been, the dream of liberals, going back to the the progressives of more than a century ago. The basic premise is that the “common people” are hopelessly ignorant, superstitious, and hate-filled, and have no idea what is good for them – but that the intellectuals have all the answers and all the skills required to transform society into a Utopia, and that they should, therefore, be put in charge for perpetuity. The first president who fully embraced this notion seems to have been Theodore Roosevelt, but many others followed in his footsteps – most notably FDR, Johnson, and now Obama. And it matters little what the personal foibles and failures of a given leader are; all that counts is good intentions (alleged), good presentation, and “optics”. And a bit of political or financial pressure applied at the right time to the right people – regrettable, of course, but fully justified given the nobility of the cause.

This is what it would take for Obama to love America – for who doesn't love his own creation? Think about Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. If FDR were still around (having given up smoking, of course), he would be ecstatic when surveying the current political scene, because even though the New Deal did not survive fully intact, what we have now includes all of its ideas, most of which have been implemented beyond his wildest dreams. And as far as LBJ and the Great Society -- “If you seek his monument, look around you”, in cities like Washington, D.C., Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. Far from being the abject failures that conservatives accuse them of being, they are a stunning success, if your definition of “success” is, first and foremost, increasing the power and scope of government at the expense of the citizenry. That, and not only defining deviancy down, but defining it out of existence. The agents of social change have done their work in our large cities, and proud of it; the only sour note was that many people were insufficiently enlightened to appreciate their efforts, and so fled to the suburbs. (But that's change too, and change is always good, right?)

And as for Obama's patriotism – why, who has ever waved the flag higher? By which I mean the flag for things like “diversity”, which is little more than totalitarianism and enforced uniformity in disguise. He could lead a very long parade of victim groups (both official and self-styled), as long as they all fit into the liberal-progressive-secular-materialist agenda. God-fearing religious people need not apply, nor do small businessmen, “angry white men” (who are, undoubtedly, also racist, sexist, and homophobic), stay-at-home moms (terribly oppressed, don'tcha know), families who opt out of government schools, and anyone who believes in freedom of economic choice.

Champions of “the people” are never the least bit interested in the hopes and dreams of real people – especially when said people are “held back” by ancient loyalties to race, religion, ethnic group, and tradition. “Diversity” to a progressive is one long “It's a Small World” ride, with colorful stereotyped costumes and stereotyped music... a sanitized street festival with all sorts of foodstuffs, kumbaya and drumming... but heaven forbid anyone try to insert real handed-down traditions and attitudes, and – yes – prejudices into the proceedings, because that is not the kind of world we want, is it? Racial, ethnic, and religious groups have been defined down through the millennia as having pride in themselves and in their own kind, and a healthy suspicion of strangers – of “the other”. This is, in fact, the key to any group's survival, and no one has questioned it up until the current era – especially when it comes to minorities. But this cannot be permitted in the New World Order; human nature must be changed, and the progressives are the ones to do it (just as the Bolsheviks were the ones to do it a century or so ago). The way must be made straight through tangled, messy human nature, and all the rough places made plain. There must be a great leveling process, starting with equal opportunity and gradually evolving into equal outcomes (once we've passed the quotas/affirmative action/reparations stage, that is). And the battle cry from the beginning to the end of this process must be “fairness” (at all costs)!

Conservatives, on the other hand -- while not perfect in this respect -- are much more capable of seeing, and accepting, human nature as it is, whether applied to individuals or groups, rather than what we might want it to be based on some idyllic image of a past that never existed, or of a future that is highly unlikely this side of the Apocalypse. They are neither offended by the way people actually are and how they behave, nor do they put “the people” on an impossibly high pedestal based on pure Utopian fantasy. Conservatives are even willing to accept the reality that some people really are dependent and need charity, while at the same time allowing others (hopefully the majority) to seek their fortune without impediment and harassment by the government. (This, by the way, is how “compassionate conservatism” should have been defined, but the people promoting it didn't have sufficient insight to do so, with the result that the term became an object of derision.)

So, when every flag is a rainbow flag, but all true differences and individuality have been snuffed out, then you can expect Obama and his ilk to be the greatest of patriots. They will look upon that which they have created, and pronounce it good.

Credit Where Credit is Due, Part 1: They Call Me Cuban Pete

After six years of the lying, cheating, stealing, and overall farce that defines the Obama administration, it's refreshing to see one thing coming out of that den of iniquity called The White House that actually makes sense. Two, actually – or let's say one and one-half. The first is the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba, and the “half” is the easing (but not total elimination – at least not yet) of prosecutorial zeal directed at users of marijuana. And some will say, well, this is, at long last, the “real Obama” -- returning to his roots as a community organizer, radical, liberal, outsider. Because, after all, six years in, what does he have to lose? He can offend anyone he wants to (and usually does) and get away with it, because he won't be running for office again, and maybe he wants to make a statement – especially one that will serve as contrast to his “inevitable” successor, namely Hillary Clinton, AKA Big Nurse. Maybe he simply wants to say that he hasn't totally sold out to the white male establishment. Whatever. I'd rather someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons than continue to do the wrong thing for whatever reasons. And in terms of the political and cultural distortions that have been a chronic infection in this society for decades, nothing stands out quite as starkly as marijuana “policy” and foreign policy when it comes to Cuba. They are holdovers from an earlier time; they were a mistake then, and they're even more of a mistake now. So pretty much any change is likely to be in the right direction – not that it will salvage the overall reputation of Obama & Co., but it will at least be part of his legacy. Just as even a stopped clock is right twice a day, even a bad president can do something right now and then, if only by accident.

To take Cuba first. The breaking of diplomatic relations and the boycott were ostensibly based on Cuba's conversion to communism, “only 90 miles from our shores”, and the confiscation of American assets (both legal and illegal -- more on that below).  And the missile crisis that soon followed (assuming it really was a crisis, and this can be called into question as well) did nothing to reassure the populace that they had nothing to worry about from that pipsqueak, cigar-chomping, bearded dictator an easy boat ride from Key West. But there were communist or communist-inspired countries all over the world at that time, complete with Russian “advisors” and Soviet military “aid”; did we boycott them? Did we break diplomatic relations? Not that I'm aware. Was it just about the military threat? Well, when you're talking about ICBMs, it matters little whether they are coming from 90 miles away, or 900, or 9000. And we had deterrent; the arms race was on, with all the talk about the “missile gap” and so forth.

So what was it really? Unlike most of the comparable cases, we felt that Cuba was, in some sense, our property – or at least it was within our immediate “sphere of influence”, and thus the Monroe Doctrine kicked in. But that wasn't the whole story by any means. Cuba was owned, all right – not by the U.S., but by the Mob. It was a border town writ large, bursting with gambling, prostitution, and all the other niceties that typify places where we have a “presence” but which are not, officially, our territory. And who, pray tell, happened to be president during those early years? John Kennedy, of course – and did his family have Mob connections? And did the Mob help put him in office with the help of Mayor Daley? And did the Mob expect him to “do something” about Cuba, take it back, and put them back in charge? I submit that these are rhetorical questions. And I also submit that it was his failure to take Cuba back that caused a whole lot of resentment in Mob circles, and which contributed to his demise. (There were many spoons in the pot on 11/22/63, but my guess is that the Mob's was one of the larger ones.)

So we learned our lesson with the Bay of Pigs, and the Russians learned their lesson with the missile crisis, and we wound up with a 50-plus-year standoff, with Castro thumbing his nose at Uncle Sam every chance he got... and college students putting posters of Che in their dorm rooms (as they continue to do to this day). So Cuba became a symbol of intransigent, in-your-face communism. Plus, we had a hotbed of Cuban refugees in Florida, and, with the possible exception of the Israel lobby, never have so few held so much political dominance over so many, particularly the Republicans, who morphed into the Neocons, who are still fighting the Cold War, because as long as a single communist, or even vaguely communist, country exists anywhere in the world, the Cold War is not over. Right? And this was despite Nixon's (a Republican!) opening up of China, even while Chairman Mao was still in charge. (Apparently a billion people on the other side of the world was less of a threat than a small island in the Caribbean.)

In the meantime, the more cynical, or pragmatic, or both, countries decided that Cuba was no big deal, and maintained diplomatic relations, trade, etc., while we held fast and gradually became more isolated in our fanaticism (as we are at present vis-a-vis Israel). And one would have thought that the breakup of the Soviet Union (with which we had diplomatic and trade relations, by the way) would have brought about a change of heart, but this was apparently not to be. Bush I could have done it... Clinton could have... Bush II could have... but no dice. And now comes Obama, and six years in, he, or someone, woke up and realized that we've been acting like a bunch of retards.

It also bears mentioning that boycotts seldom work. I say “seldom” because once in a while they do seem to work, as in the case of South Africa in apartheid days. (We haven't seen the final results when it comes to Iran, and now Russia, but I smell failure in both cases.) And it should also be pointed out that boycotts tend to hurt the ordinary people of the target country much more than the leadership or the elite. So doing it for the sake of “the people of _____” is pure malarkey.

And another thing – we always claim that our best weapon when it comes to “spreading democracy” is trade. The Russian bear is a mere cub compared to the big, brawny arms of American business – right? We say this, but we apparently don't believe it. I suspect that if we had not been so pouty and resentful all these years, Cuba would have risen out of the communist morass much faster – maybe completely by now. Fidel Castro would continue to be an icon, the way Mao is in China, but their economic system would be nothing like the one he envisioned and then created. (This is not a perfect analogy, given that he's still alive, but it would certainly have been worth a try.)

And what was more absurd than making friends with communist Vietnam, and granting them favored trading status, even though they defeated us in a war, but remaining stiff-necked with regard to Cuba? Yeah, I know – halfway around the world vs. 90 miles, etc. But Vietnam wasn't too far away for us to send our military over there to help a corrupt government, was it?

And I'm sure there are many other arguments besides. Even if it kind of made sense in the 1960s, it got old fast, and yet we held on because... well, because they shouldn'ta done that, doggone it! It's the principle of the thing, no matter how absurd or ineffective. Cuba was a thorn in the side of the American Empire, and it will likely continue to be for some time to come... and Obama is nothing if not an abject servant of that empire and all that it entails and implies. And yet, for some reason, he has seen fit to, again, make a statement. Maybe it's just to spite the Republicans – but that's OK too. Anti-communism, which was perfectly justifiable at one time, has degenerated into a racket; it's a war against something that no longer exists, or if it does, barely. We've got bigger fish to fry right now, and maybe this is part of what went into Obama's thinking.

It is also fascinating to consider that Pope Francis had a facilitating role in all this. One recalls the role Pope John Paul II had when it came to the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Of course, for the liberal media to give any pope credit for anything would be to commit the greatest of political offenses, and yet it happened.

And don't expect “academe” to be celebrating any time soon. Castro remains one of their heroes, standing high on their pantheon, and as long as Cuba stood “alone” against the forces of capitalism, it was considered an admirable – nay, ideal – society. (Can you say “free medical care”, boys and girls?) But with the likely welcoming of Cuba into the global... OK, North American... OK, our economy, there will inevitably be compromises and “sell-outs”, the way there were with China. So the heroes of the revolution will turn out to have feet of clay after all, seduced by the great American shopping mall. Sic transit gloria...