The Apologist-in-Chief is at it again, this time apologizing in Hiroshima for the actions the US military took to end that bloody war. He says the decision was a mistake, and evil. Now, there is no one who thinks nuclear bombs aren't terrible weapons. And there's no one who thinks America's choice to drop those bombs wasn't a tragedy. But it was the best choice, and a wise decision.
It was estimated at the time that a US invasion of Japan would cost 1 million lives, just of American soldiers! Japan itself would have been totally devastated. The Americans had already learned in numerous Pacific battles that the Japanese were willing to fight to the last man. What Obama doesn't mention in his apology is the millions of Japanese lives that were saved by the destruction of two cities. It's like when the police taser a belligerent so they won't have to shoot him. The decision is made to bring an end to the conflict with the least overall damage done.
Another factor contributing to the decision was that the Soviet Union was preparing its own invasion of Japan. Would the Japanese have preferred to be administered by communists? They certainly wouldn't be the world's 3rd largest economy (2nd until recently eclipsed by China). Would Japan be better off today if the northern half looked like North Korea? Obama apologizes for Truman's difficult decision as if the outcome would have been the same either way.
Any child has the sense to know that nuclear bombs are bad. But it takes some wisdom to contemplate the long-term and real-world consequences. Barack Obama believes he is enlightened because he thinks nuclear weapons are bad. Guess what, EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE BAD!! He's not morally superior for thinking their use was horrific, but he is a moron for going and prostrating himself before the world like some new-age sage.
He says we'll never repeat that "mistake". Does he have any clue that the mutually assured destruction between Russia and the US was the one thing that prevented Europe from being ground up between those super powers? Does he not realize that today Europe and Japan's militaries are not adequate, and their security depends on the US nuclear umbrella? And now he declares we would never actually use those weapons. Green light Putin! Please don't take more than you need! No wonder he felt free to annex the Crimea and thwart the US-backed overthrow of Assad. He's a wolf, and Obama is a bleating lamb.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Obama Projects his Foreign Policy Failures on to Trump
This guy. The quote from the Atlantic is this:
So Obama is going lecture Trump about world affairs. About ignorance, a cavalier attitude, and keeping Americans safe. Holy fucking projection Batman. Let's talk about his own world affairs for a moment.
Candidate Obama ran on the promise that he would reign in and reverse the Bush doctrine. Bush's most significant world actions were the overthrow of two foreign governments. One for some plausible rationale that most people still agree to, and one based on falsified intel; an invasion that most people today believe was a colossal mistake. This was the foreign policy Obama promised to overturn, and for that promise he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few months in office.
In reality, Obama's foreign policy has been quite similar to Bush's, except that it has been much worse. Like Bush, Obama's most significant actions have been the overthrow (or attempted overthrow) of two foreign governments. Let's look at each.
Libya, like Iraq, was sold by blatantly lying to the America people. We were told that we needed to overthrow Gadaffi because he was a brutal dictator and it was required to prevent mass genocide. That claim was utterly nonsense for 3 reasons.
The real reasons for invading were more or less understood by a group of people on the internet generally referred to as conspiracy theorists. Those theories were later substantiated by an email exchange between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her informal advisor Sydney Blumenthal that was hacked by the Romanian hacker Guccifer. In reality Gaddafi's sins were the ambition to create a pan-North African economic zone, which garnered the ire of the old imperialists in Europe, in particular the French.
Not only did Obama continue the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading countries for made-up reasons, but he actually did a worse job of it. At least Bush used US ground forces to provide some level of stability and to prop up democratic governments. Instead in the Libyan coup the US provided air supremacy, but outsourced the legwork by arming and advising rebel groups. This left a vacuum filled by nice people like ISIS, and led to the types of genocide that the US said it was preventing. Not only is Libya a complete disaster itself, but it has become a staging ground for migrants from Africa to Europe, who are currently arriving in Italy at a rate of over 1000 per day. This migration is destroying Europe. It is conjecture to say so now, but I guarantee this migration will lead to civil war in Europe (the EU does not seem willing to dissolve peacefully). Libya was probably the greatest disaster of military interventionism in all of US history. The exact type of disaster that Candidate Obama promised would not happen.
Then there was Syria. Like Gaddafi, it was claimed that Assad must be overthrown because of the risked he posed to his own people. And like Gaddafi, there were actually hidden geo-political reasons behind this decision. (Assad rejected a proposal to build a gas pipeline through his country that would have connected the gulf states with Europe, because it would damage the interests of his ally Russia). Assad had a history of rejecting demands of western powers.
The major difference between the Syrian invasion, and those of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, was that Syria was a failed attempt. First, the Obama-Kerry diplomatic dream team failed to muster enough support for an outright invasion. So the US reverted to the Libya model of aiding rebel groups and isolating Assad politically. But, this effort was outmaneuvered both militarily and diplomatically by Putin. The reason Obama has fewer overthrown foreign governments than Bush is not because of benevolence, but for incompetence.
Despite not achieving the goal of overthrowing another world leader who rejected western hegemony, the world was still able to enjoy most of the downsides. The power vacuum left by weakened governments in Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, the Islamic state that is defined by it's brutality. Like Libya, the Syrian actions opened the floodgates of refugees to Europe (and now America). This refugee crisis, troubling on it's own, has been multiplied TEN TIMES because it has given an excuse for all economic migrants to Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia. Literally ten times at least: 90% of the migrants don't come from Syria, and almost all of those that do come from Syria are able-bodied young men with enough cash to pay smugglers, not the destitute women and orphans Obama talks about, who are mostly in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan. This stream of mostly Muslim migrants has directly led to an explosion of crime in Europe, the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels (more to come this summer no doubt), and, in a true display of Obama's utter incompetence, the sharp reactionary rise of populist nationalism and right-wing political parties in Europe and America.
For Obama to accuse Trump of "ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude" or implying that he will fail to keep Americans safe, is just lunacy. It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not. President Obama simply has zero legitimacy to make those claims. Despite his promises, he has without doubt administered the greatest failure of US foreign policy of any US president in history. Even if Trump was bad, he could never be Obama bad. Whatever Obama tries to do has the opposite effect of his intentions. And whatever he says is normally the opposite of what is true. The more Obama says Trump will be a terrible president, the more you can be sure he will be an excellent one.
[World leaders are] rattled by [Trump] and for good reason. Because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what is required to keep America safe.
So Obama is going lecture Trump about world affairs. About ignorance, a cavalier attitude, and keeping Americans safe. Holy fucking projection Batman. Let's talk about his own world affairs for a moment.
Candidate Obama ran on the promise that he would reign in and reverse the Bush doctrine. Bush's most significant world actions were the overthrow of two foreign governments. One for some plausible rationale that most people still agree to, and one based on falsified intel; an invasion that most people today believe was a colossal mistake. This was the foreign policy Obama promised to overturn, and for that promise he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in his first few months in office.
In reality, Obama's foreign policy has been quite similar to Bush's, except that it has been much worse. Like Bush, Obama's most significant actions have been the overthrow (or attempted overthrow) of two foreign governments. Let's look at each.
Libya, like Iraq, was sold by blatantly lying to the America people. We were told that we needed to overthrow Gadaffi because he was a brutal dictator and it was required to prevent mass genocide. That claim was utterly nonsense for 3 reasons.
- Gaddafi was beloved by his people. He shared the oil wealth of the nation generously and they enjoyed the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa.
- Even if he did commit human rights violations against his own people, so does staunch US ally Saudi Arabia. Even if the claims weren't completely false, they'd certainly be disingenuous.
- Genocide did occur. It happened against black Africans by the Islamic rebels the US was arming and supporting.
The real reasons for invading were more or less understood by a group of people on the internet generally referred to as conspiracy theorists. Those theories were later substantiated by an email exchange between then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her informal advisor Sydney Blumenthal that was hacked by the Romanian hacker Guccifer. In reality Gaddafi's sins were the ambition to create a pan-North African economic zone, which garnered the ire of the old imperialists in Europe, in particular the French.
Not only did Obama continue the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading countries for made-up reasons, but he actually did a worse job of it. At least Bush used US ground forces to provide some level of stability and to prop up democratic governments. Instead in the Libyan coup the US provided air supremacy, but outsourced the legwork by arming and advising rebel groups. This left a vacuum filled by nice people like ISIS, and led to the types of genocide that the US said it was preventing. Not only is Libya a complete disaster itself, but it has become a staging ground for migrants from Africa to Europe, who are currently arriving in Italy at a rate of over 1000 per day. This migration is destroying Europe. It is conjecture to say so now, but I guarantee this migration will lead to civil war in Europe (the EU does not seem willing to dissolve peacefully). Libya was probably the greatest disaster of military interventionism in all of US history. The exact type of disaster that Candidate Obama promised would not happen.
Then there was Syria. Like Gaddafi, it was claimed that Assad must be overthrown because of the risked he posed to his own people. And like Gaddafi, there were actually hidden geo-political reasons behind this decision. (Assad rejected a proposal to build a gas pipeline through his country that would have connected the gulf states with Europe, because it would damage the interests of his ally Russia). Assad had a history of rejecting demands of western powers.
The major difference between the Syrian invasion, and those of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, was that Syria was a failed attempt. First, the Obama-Kerry diplomatic dream team failed to muster enough support for an outright invasion. So the US reverted to the Libya model of aiding rebel groups and isolating Assad politically. But, this effort was outmaneuvered both militarily and diplomatically by Putin. The reason Obama has fewer overthrown foreign governments than Bush is not because of benevolence, but for incompetence.
Despite not achieving the goal of overthrowing another world leader who rejected western hegemony, the world was still able to enjoy most of the downsides. The power vacuum left by weakened governments in Syria and Iraq led to the rise of ISIS, the Islamic state that is defined by it's brutality. Like Libya, the Syrian actions opened the floodgates of refugees to Europe (and now America). This refugee crisis, troubling on it's own, has been multiplied TEN TIMES because it has given an excuse for all economic migrants to Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia. Literally ten times at least: 90% of the migrants don't come from Syria, and almost all of those that do come from Syria are able-bodied young men with enough cash to pay smugglers, not the destitute women and orphans Obama talks about, who are mostly in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan. This stream of mostly Muslim migrants has directly led to an explosion of crime in Europe, the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels (more to come this summer no doubt), and, in a true display of Obama's utter incompetence, the sharp reactionary rise of populist nationalism and right-wing political parties in Europe and America.
For Obama to accuse Trump of "ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude" or implying that he will fail to keep Americans safe, is just lunacy. It doesn't even matter if it's correct or not. President Obama simply has zero legitimacy to make those claims. Despite his promises, he has without doubt administered the greatest failure of US foreign policy of any US president in history. Even if Trump was bad, he could never be Obama bad. Whatever Obama tries to do has the opposite effect of his intentions. And whatever he says is normally the opposite of what is true. The more Obama says Trump will be a terrible president, the more you can be sure he will be an excellent one.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Sadiq's Con
London's recently elected Muslim mayor effectively stated today that if Trump doesn't stop his "ignorant" view of Islam, then Muslims living in the US and UK will become radicalized and commit terror attacks. Think about that a minute.
What is this, a mafia shakedown? "Eh, that sure is a nice country you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I can't keep my dogs on a leash forever, kapeesh?" If there was more of reason to support Trump, I don't know what it is. In fact, I'd say that Trump's detractors have done more to make me a supporter than Trump himself.
Also, his use of the word to describe Trump's stance as ignorant is just typical. First of all, you have to realize what it means when a liberal says ignorant. They don't mean your views are lacking in awareness. It's simply that liberals are sure they are smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. So anyone who disagrees with them must then be stupid or ignorant.
Of course, there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr Trump's views. Dr. Peter Hammond has thoroughly documented the effects on society as the percentage of Muslims increases. It is so well described that his model can be used as a prescriptive tool, and in fact Europe's migrant crisis is actually ahead of schedule,since the governments and most of the citizens are so willing to accommodate Muslim demands in the name of multiculturalism and desire to virtue signal. But the short of it is, Trump's views are certainly not ignorant in the traditional sense.
In conclusion:
What is this, a mafia shakedown? "Eh, that sure is a nice country you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I can't keep my dogs on a leash forever, kapeesh?" If there was more of reason to support Trump, I don't know what it is. In fact, I'd say that Trump's detractors have done more to make me a supporter than Trump himself.
Also, his use of the word to describe Trump's stance as ignorant is just typical. First of all, you have to realize what it means when a liberal says ignorant. They don't mean your views are lacking in awareness. It's simply that liberals are sure they are smarter and more sophisticated than everyone else. So anyone who disagrees with them must then be stupid or ignorant.
Of course, there is plenty of evidence to back up Mr Trump's views. Dr. Peter Hammond has thoroughly documented the effects on society as the percentage of Muslims increases. It is so well described that his model can be used as a prescriptive tool, and in fact Europe's migrant crisis is actually ahead of schedule,since the governments and most of the citizens are so willing to accommodate Muslim demands in the name of multiculturalism and desire to virtue signal. But the short of it is, Trump's views are certainly not ignorant in the traditional sense.
In conclusion:
- Being called ignorant by a liberal is almost always a compliment. In a twist of irony, it effectively means not delusional, sane, or sober.
- The Muslim mayor is basically threatening violence if Muslims are checked from their invasion. The west is being openly bullied by a small minority of the population.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention
My thoughts on this recent article in the Foreign Policy Journal.
It's really nice to get to see commentary that was firmly in the realm of consipiracy theory become mainstream knowledge in so little time. In a way, we should maybe thank Clinton for mishandling of classified government information :)
Things that are known to be true:
(1) The "popular uprising" was heavily fueled by western operatives, who supplied “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.” It can be assumed they were also given funding, intelligence, and, most importantly, moral support.
(2) The reason given for the no-fly-zone, to prevent genocide by the Gadaffi regime, was not genuine, as the rebels themselves routinely committed genocide against black and dark-skinned Libyans, including an entire town of 30,000.
(3) Libya was overthrown by the west, for western benefit, particularly the French. Most importantly, Libya's self-reliance (thanks to its oil reserves) and efforts to create North African economic zone, was considered intolerable to the elites of the western world. (That sounds like conspiracy talk, but it's basically the gist of the intelligence emails being sent to Clinton).
(4) Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was provably in the know about all of these things, yet has repeatedly lied and misled about the events.
What may still be true, or I believe to be true:
(1) Western operatives were influential in compelling protests in the first place. Many accuse the Arab Spring of being largely a CIA operation, and it seems there is likely a bit of truth to that.
(2) While people like me rant until we're red-faced about the utter failure that was Libya, to those who drove events it was a wild success. The threat to the Francosphere has been muted, and Libyan oil has been liberated. We often think of the US and west as starting wars to get oil, but in this case it was most important to stop the oil, because it was not in our control. It is better that there is no oil, than to have it in the hands of those who rebuke western hegemony. The worst case going forward, for the western elites, is the same thing they proclaim as the ultimate goal: a new robustly democratic Libyan government. This is not likely to serve western interests any better than the democratic government of Iraq has served the US. Generally chaos is the best bet, so that north Africans won't stand united, and oil production will be, in the worst case, minimal. (In the best case, contracted to western energy companies.) Even a jihadi takeover isn't the worst case, so long as it's reasonably contained. If some Islamic warlord became very successful pumping and selling oil, they would simply be bombed in the name of the War on Terror. As you see, the Libyan oil reserves are now reasonably under control, and the aspirations for a north African economic zone have been squashed.
(3) For Hillary Clinton the whole operation was a big success. Not because she made the world a better place (she didn't) or because she dutifully served the American people (she didn't), but because she went to bat for the global order. She has proven herself to the sort of "establishment within the establishment" kind of people, the kind of people who can get unlimited arms and air support sent to Africa to protect innocent civilians, knowing damn well what the real story is. The goal for Libya was simply for disorder, and the mission was a brilliant success. It's only too bad that Clinton can't brag about her greatest achievement to the people she pretends to represent.
It's really nice to get to see commentary that was firmly in the realm of consipiracy theory become mainstream knowledge in so little time. In a way, we should maybe thank Clinton for mishandling of classified government information :)
Things that are known to be true:
(1) The "popular uprising" was heavily fueled by western operatives, who supplied “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.” It can be assumed they were also given funding, intelligence, and, most importantly, moral support.
(2) The reason given for the no-fly-zone, to prevent genocide by the Gadaffi regime, was not genuine, as the rebels themselves routinely committed genocide against black and dark-skinned Libyans, including an entire town of 30,000.
(3) Libya was overthrown by the west, for western benefit, particularly the French. Most importantly, Libya's self-reliance (thanks to its oil reserves) and efforts to create North African economic zone, was considered intolerable to the elites of the western world. (That sounds like conspiracy talk, but it's basically the gist of the intelligence emails being sent to Clinton).
(4) Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was provably in the know about all of these things, yet has repeatedly lied and misled about the events.
What may still be true, or I believe to be true:
(1) Western operatives were influential in compelling protests in the first place. Many accuse the Arab Spring of being largely a CIA operation, and it seems there is likely a bit of truth to that.
(2) While people like me rant until we're red-faced about the utter failure that was Libya, to those who drove events it was a wild success. The threat to the Francosphere has been muted, and Libyan oil has been liberated. We often think of the US and west as starting wars to get oil, but in this case it was most important to stop the oil, because it was not in our control. It is better that there is no oil, than to have it in the hands of those who rebuke western hegemony. The worst case going forward, for the western elites, is the same thing they proclaim as the ultimate goal: a new robustly democratic Libyan government. This is not likely to serve western interests any better than the democratic government of Iraq has served the US. Generally chaos is the best bet, so that north Africans won't stand united, and oil production will be, in the worst case, minimal. (In the best case, contracted to western energy companies.) Even a jihadi takeover isn't the worst case, so long as it's reasonably contained. If some Islamic warlord became very successful pumping and selling oil, they would simply be bombed in the name of the War on Terror. As you see, the Libyan oil reserves are now reasonably under control, and the aspirations for a north African economic zone have been squashed.
(3) For Hillary Clinton the whole operation was a big success. Not because she made the world a better place (she didn't) or because she dutifully served the American people (she didn't), but because she went to bat for the global order. She has proven herself to the sort of "establishment within the establishment" kind of people, the kind of people who can get unlimited arms and air support sent to Africa to protect innocent civilians, knowing damn well what the real story is. The goal for Libya was simply for disorder, and the mission was a brilliant success. It's only too bad that Clinton can't brag about her greatest achievement to the people she pretends to represent.
Monday, January 18, 2016
The Final Democratic Debate
Last night was the first debate I actually watched in its entirety. Here's my brief analysis to whomever might be interested.
First, I don't know much about Martin O'Malley, but he comes off well. He definitely isn't given his fair share of talking time. Generally he comes off as the most "Presidential", maybe of any candidate running. A few gripes though:
(1) a lot of his comments were of the type "these two are fighting about the issue, but what we need is unity." Shut up hippy! Adults are arguing here. No, we can't always all get along, and you're not contributing with those comments. On the other hand, he did do well at tying the issues to his experience as governor.
(2) He said, "I've never met a hunter who needed an AR-15 to kill a deer." Herp derp, me do sound byte!! Mr. O'Malley, lets review the stances of some of the founding fathers who crafted the 2nd Amendment.
You're not wrong O'Malley, you just have no frame of reference. (Does that work?) You're arguing the wrong premise. The 2nd Amendment states its purpose in its own text, as "being necessary to the security of a free state", not to "bag more bucks."
I don't mind that he is against gun rights. I think that is fine. I understand given all our problems with gun crime and that times are different. But to try to score a sweet sound bite by completely circumventing the premise of the issue is just more of the same old bullshit polliticking that I can't stand. You're better than that, other guy on the stage!
(3) I think he's laying off Hillary more than he could. He's careful never to get in a position where it seems that he is teaming up with Bernie against her. Why? Because he's angling for a VP seat in the Clinton administration.
The woman proves over and over again that she, first and foremost, cannot be trusted. She's a snake. She'll say anything and smear anyone and put on any fake accent to increase her own power. She is a sociopath, no doubt about it.
O'Malley
First, I don't know much about Martin O'Malley, but he comes off well. He definitely isn't given his fair share of talking time. Generally he comes off as the most "Presidential", maybe of any candidate running. A few gripes though:
(1) a lot of his comments were of the type "these two are fighting about the issue, but what we need is unity." Shut up hippy! Adults are arguing here. No, we can't always all get along, and you're not contributing with those comments. On the other hand, he did do well at tying the issues to his experience as governor.
(2) He said, "I've never met a hunter who needed an AR-15 to kill a deer." Herp derp, me do sound byte!! Mr. O'Malley, lets review the stances of some of the founding fathers who crafted the 2nd Amendment.
- "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." -Jefferson.
- "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Henry
- "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - Washington
- "I needs mah guns to shoots me some deers!!!" - No founding father ever
You're not wrong O'Malley, you just have no frame of reference. (Does that work?) You're arguing the wrong premise. The 2nd Amendment states its purpose in its own text, as "being necessary to the security of a free state", not to "bag more bucks."
I don't mind that he is against gun rights. I think that is fine. I understand given all our problems with gun crime and that times are different. But to try to score a sweet sound bite by completely circumventing the premise of the issue is just more of the same old bullshit polliticking that I can't stand. You're better than that, other guy on the stage!
(3) I think he's laying off Hillary more than he could. He's careful never to get in a position where it seems that he is teaming up with Bernie against her. Why? Because he's angling for a VP seat in the Clinton administration.
Sanders
It's no secret that I'm a Sanders fan, and he's my favorite of the group. I don't agree with a large swathe of his liberal politics, but on a few key issues I really really agree with him (Citizen's United, TPP). I think he's honest and his heart's in the right place, a rare trait in a major politician these days. He has conviction, not just a well-crafted illusion of conviction.
With that said, I can see why some people dislike him. He's certainly the least poised on stage. Constantly fighting to interject or to keep talking past the moderators, ultimately to mostly repeat the same thing: "the system is rigged." I agree, I think the system is, in fact, rigged. One only has to look at the 2008 crisis to see that. Not only was no one prosecuted from what can only be described as a culture of crime and corruption...they got a shitload of money for it. Mind blowing. And yet, I guess most people watching a debate on primetime network TV are going to judge off feels over facts. I think he's right to be frustrated and frazzled, but that won't win the votes he's looking for.
Clinton
If you're careful, you can almost find yourself liking Clinton. She's comfortable on stage, She comes off as informed and sometimes has some pretty good answers to questions. Don't fall for it. She's evil. She's brilliant at crafting an answer to a completely different question than the one asked, and selling it. This is a woman who can be asked about her heavy indebtedness to Wall Street and make it about 9/11 victims!! (from a previous debate). She several times lobbied ridiculous claims against Sanders: that he wants to dismantle healthcare programs; that he is pro-NRA; that he is anti Obama. I, for one, would support him for all those!! But he's not those things. He's just fucking not. No wonder Bernie seems frustrated. And Clinton taking credit for things where it is undeserved, saying the chemical weapons disarmament of Assad was somehow her victory. It wasn't, it was Russia's victory. She's assuming your typical NBC viewer is not informed enough to know the difference.The woman proves over and over again that she, first and foremost, cannot be trusted. She's a snake. She'll say anything and smear anyone and put on any fake accent to increase her own power. She is a sociopath, no doubt about it.
Conclusion
It should be a bit scary to all of us that the two frontrunners for President, world's soft emperor and key holder to a doomsday nuclear arsenal, are a sociopath and a narcissist. I, for one, am in the Anyone-But-Hillary crowd. I've never voted against a candidate. What I should do is vote for Rand Paul in the Republican primary, because his is my favorite candidate. What I might do is vote for Sanders in the dem side, not just because I like his candidacy (and I do) but to help keep Clinton out.
tl;dr Clinton is a good politician but a bad candidate. Bernie is a bad politician but a good candidate. O'Malley might actually be the most palatable. I'm surprised he doesn't poll higher.
Friday, December 11, 2015
The establishment is the 3rd party
What seems to be emerging, or wants to emerge, is a 3-party system. On the left and right wings we have populist movements, and in the center the establishment moderates. In such a scenario, the Tea Party/Trump crowd is a nationalist voting block, the Occupy/Sanders crowd is basically a Democrat-Socialist party. The center party would cover the current Democrat-Republican barrier, and include politicians like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, and probably Barrack Obama.
Will that actually happen? Generally the two-party system is quite stable. And on the left we see the stabilization in action with Hillary constantly moving towards Bernie's positions. So far I haven't heard many Bernie supporters saying they'd refuse to vote for Hillary. They'll rally around her in opposition to Trump or basically whoever the Republican candidate is. So Bernie will have had the effect of shifting her campaign rhetoric, although that's no likely to matter to much once she's elected. So a lot of people on the left will be pissed off, but they'll toe the line and the party will be stable. The system is stable because everyone votes against the other guy.
The Republican party though, is not quite as stable. We saw it several elections ago when Ross Perot split the right vote. We saw major conflicts in the Republican caucuses during the Ron Paul campaigns. And now Trump threatens to split the party apart. And the reason, to me, is simple. The party has two camps: the conservative, nationalist part, and the part that represents the corporate, financial, and globalist interests. The two are increasingly at odds with one another. I think it's only a matter of time until the party splits.
Now, if you're a Democrat, particularly a liberal one, you're probably giddy with excitement at the prospect of the GOP crumbling. Don't be. You can't just destabilize one half of the system. The effects will trickle throughout. What happens to the establishment part of the GOP when Trump wins the nomination, or takes a large chunk of the voting block with him for an independent run? Those people who support Rubio or Bush could probably come over and support a Clinton or Biden, or any centrist establishment Democrat versus Trump. At the least, you'll see a lot of that corporate lobbying move towards Democrats. This will alienate the anti-establishment liberals even more, and would ultimately cause the Democrats to fracture as well.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
On Ignoring Trump
I've been hearing that the best way to get Trump off the ballot is to ignore him. Well ignoring it might make him go away, or not. Sometimes the burning goes away, sometimes you gotta get that penicillin shot. Maybe another approach would be to examine why he hasn't been the flash in the pan that well all expected him to be. The truth is he has captured all the energy of the populist right insurgency. So maybe the questions to ask are (1) why the insurgency and (2) why is Trump their guy?
First we shouldn't lament that there is this swelling right-wing populism. We're long past due for some popular political action in this country. The bureaucracy has become too big, too corrupt, and too incompetent, and everybody knows it, especially those on the anti-establishment right. This populism really showed itself in the Tea-Party (now dubbed Liberty) movement. While largely ridiculed, what was the Tea Party but a bunch of people who's hearts were in the right place, but they largely weren't sophisticated enough to see the ruse. They knew that ordinary Americans are getting screwed, that powerful anti-democratic forces are destroying the country, yet they get tricked into believing the government is the primary enemy, and they spend their energy behind such tasks as removing the estate tax. Populism isn't a monopoly of the right. The liberal analogue to the Tea Party was the Occupy Movement. How amazing is it that both movements wanted almost exactly the same thing, yet conventional wisdom told us they stood at polar extremes of the political spectrum.
The left populism has largely solidified around the Bernie Sanders campaign. And what a great candidate. I don't agree with a good portion of his liberal agenda, but talk about being the right guy for the job. He's experienced, he's genuine, he's not the prompter-reading narcissist-in-a-suit we're all so sick of. His success is fueled by left-wing (and even moderate) populism. Hillary's success is merely a baramoter of the establishment hold on power. Well that and some unfortunate gender politics. Leftist populism has settled around a serious candidate, and things look good on that end.
What about on the right? Where is their Bernie Sanders? The most apparent equivalent is Ron Paul, who led popular presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, but is too long in the tooth for another run. He had an heir. Rand rode his father's popularity to a US Senate seat. He had all kinds of populist street cred by proxy. But he tried to make himself into the establishment-friendly libertarian. He was in the right time and place to score a big touchdown but he fumbled the ball. He pandered to the establishment when the rest of the party was running away from it. I like Rand, he's probably my favorite candidate of the bunch. He seems to put his money where his mouth is. But there is a reason he is polling at 2%.
Frankly there is not serious candidate to capture the populist movement. There is no Barry Goldwater this time around. There is Rand, there is Trump, and there are a bunch of Super-PAC funded pols. Outsiders Carson and Fiorina had good runs. I'm not entirely sure why Fiorina's star has faded. I suspect it's because she did seem to be pandering to the establishment, a sort of Hillary of the right. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way she's clearly been outshone by Trump. Carson was the candidate we all wanted to believe in. Turns out he's not actually all that intelligent. I mean I'm sure he's smart, but not President smart. Bush and Walker were the obvious establishment choices, and their bids have been dismal. Cruz and Rubio still look good I'd say. But you can't help but think Cruz could never win the general and Rubio will be lucky to get the nomination.
And then there's Trump. For all his flaws, he's a brilliant showman. Let's not discredit that. And for all his bluster, he is a legitimate populist candidate. Outside of Sanders he is the only candidate without a billionaire-funded Super-PAC (although there was one until fairly recently). There is some irony that he is a billionaire who largely self funds his campaign. But at this point if you're an anti-establishment conservative you take what you can get. Trump doesn't go out of his way to be politically correct, which everyone is sick of. He doesn't pander to the establishment, which everyone is sick of. And he lets the populist right know he's solidly on their side. Let's look at his most recent comments that have everyone in a tizzy.
He has proposed a ban on all Muslim immigration, even to the extent of banning Muslim tourists. I take this is hyperbole. It's an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment, for one. I doubt he really wants this. But it serves two needs. First, it generates him lots of attention. And to that end, A+. It's been Trump Trump Trump for several days now. Mostly it's the enraged left giving it to him. Second, it dismisses multiculturalism completely. White conservatives are tired of being called racist bigots at every turn. They're tired of the nearly institutionalized white shaming (called white privilege). And they're tired of being told ethnocentrism is just a horrid evil. It's very telling that the reaction of the left has been to assert that it is now a fact, no longer an opinion, that Trump is a racist. Islam isn't a race!! Religion isn't race! It is unconstitional to apply a religious litmus test for immigration, but it is simply not racist for citizens to not welcome another religion or culture. The word racist is just a slander at this point, no longer a word with meaning. It is the white analog of nigger. But this isn't about race. It's not even that much about religion. It's about culture. If the Syrian refugees wore Cubs hats and shot skeet and sang drunk renditions of Alan Jackson at karaoke night, not one decent redneck would give two licks about their race or religion. Trump is the only candidate out there to question, let alone entirely dismiss, the dogma of multiculturalism. He's willing to say so out loud, and take all the heat he is for it. He didn't have to say these things. He shouldn't have, at least politically speaking. But he did. And to many people, well it simply makes him a hero.
He's not a very good candidate, I don't think. But right-wing populists are energized right now. There's no ideal candidate for them to rally around. Trump's become the figurehead of populist conservatism. Maybe he's the wrong man for the right movement, but Trump won't go away because you ignore him.
First we shouldn't lament that there is this swelling right-wing populism. We're long past due for some popular political action in this country. The bureaucracy has become too big, too corrupt, and too incompetent, and everybody knows it, especially those on the anti-establishment right. This populism really showed itself in the Tea-Party (now dubbed Liberty) movement. While largely ridiculed, what was the Tea Party but a bunch of people who's hearts were in the right place, but they largely weren't sophisticated enough to see the ruse. They knew that ordinary Americans are getting screwed, that powerful anti-democratic forces are destroying the country, yet they get tricked into believing the government is the primary enemy, and they spend their energy behind such tasks as removing the estate tax. Populism isn't a monopoly of the right. The liberal analogue to the Tea Party was the Occupy Movement. How amazing is it that both movements wanted almost exactly the same thing, yet conventional wisdom told us they stood at polar extremes of the political spectrum.
The left populism has largely solidified around the Bernie Sanders campaign. And what a great candidate. I don't agree with a good portion of his liberal agenda, but talk about being the right guy for the job. He's experienced, he's genuine, he's not the prompter-reading narcissist-in-a-suit we're all so sick of. His success is fueled by left-wing (and even moderate) populism. Hillary's success is merely a baramoter of the establishment hold on power. Well that and some unfortunate gender politics. Leftist populism has settled around a serious candidate, and things look good on that end.
What about on the right? Where is their Bernie Sanders? The most apparent equivalent is Ron Paul, who led popular presidential bids in 2008 and 2012, but is too long in the tooth for another run. He had an heir. Rand rode his father's popularity to a US Senate seat. He had all kinds of populist street cred by proxy. But he tried to make himself into the establishment-friendly libertarian. He was in the right time and place to score a big touchdown but he fumbled the ball. He pandered to the establishment when the rest of the party was running away from it. I like Rand, he's probably my favorite candidate of the bunch. He seems to put his money where his mouth is. But there is a reason he is polling at 2%.
Frankly there is not serious candidate to capture the populist movement. There is no Barry Goldwater this time around. There is Rand, there is Trump, and there are a bunch of Super-PAC funded pols. Outsiders Carson and Fiorina had good runs. I'm not entirely sure why Fiorina's star has faded. I suspect it's because she did seem to be pandering to the establishment, a sort of Hillary of the right. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way she's clearly been outshone by Trump. Carson was the candidate we all wanted to believe in. Turns out he's not actually all that intelligent. I mean I'm sure he's smart, but not President smart. Bush and Walker were the obvious establishment choices, and their bids have been dismal. Cruz and Rubio still look good I'd say. But you can't help but think Cruz could never win the general and Rubio will be lucky to get the nomination.
And then there's Trump. For all his flaws, he's a brilliant showman. Let's not discredit that. And for all his bluster, he is a legitimate populist candidate. Outside of Sanders he is the only candidate without a billionaire-funded Super-PAC (although there was one until fairly recently). There is some irony that he is a billionaire who largely self funds his campaign. But at this point if you're an anti-establishment conservative you take what you can get. Trump doesn't go out of his way to be politically correct, which everyone is sick of. He doesn't pander to the establishment, which everyone is sick of. And he lets the populist right know he's solidly on their side. Let's look at his most recent comments that have everyone in a tizzy.
He has proposed a ban on all Muslim immigration, even to the extent of banning Muslim tourists. I take this is hyperbole. It's an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment, for one. I doubt he really wants this. But it serves two needs. First, it generates him lots of attention. And to that end, A+. It's been Trump Trump Trump for several days now. Mostly it's the enraged left giving it to him. Second, it dismisses multiculturalism completely. White conservatives are tired of being called racist bigots at every turn. They're tired of the nearly institutionalized white shaming (called white privilege). And they're tired of being told ethnocentrism is just a horrid evil. It's very telling that the reaction of the left has been to assert that it is now a fact, no longer an opinion, that Trump is a racist. Islam isn't a race!! Religion isn't race! It is unconstitional to apply a religious litmus test for immigration, but it is simply not racist for citizens to not welcome another religion or culture. The word racist is just a slander at this point, no longer a word with meaning. It is the white analog of nigger. But this isn't about race. It's not even that much about religion. It's about culture. If the Syrian refugees wore Cubs hats and shot skeet and sang drunk renditions of Alan Jackson at karaoke night, not one decent redneck would give two licks about their race or religion. Trump is the only candidate out there to question, let alone entirely dismiss, the dogma of multiculturalism. He's willing to say so out loud, and take all the heat he is for it. He didn't have to say these things. He shouldn't have, at least politically speaking. But he did. And to many people, well it simply makes him a hero.
He's not a very good candidate, I don't think. But right-wing populists are energized right now. There's no ideal candidate for them to rally around. Trump's become the figurehead of populist conservatism. Maybe he's the wrong man for the right movement, but Trump won't go away because you ignore him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)