I'm back.
Full disclosure. It really wasn't my plan. Then again, neither was Trump becoming President. And since then, damn if reality TV hasn't become the norm in Washington. Crazy is a woefully inadequate term to describe the daily goings-on, but it's accurate. But you don't need to read this or any other blog to tell you that. But what seems to be missing from the 24/7 conversation in this new world of real vs. fake news is a perspective that's neither #MAGA nor #NotMyPresident. So I figured, "Hey, that's me, the former Bernie supporter!" I don't hate Trump personally, nor do I think he's the answer to all that ails America. What I hope to provide you, gentle reader, is an independent perspective on the new Administration that I hope is honest, novel, and occasionally amusing in nature, based entirely (well, mostly) on my own observations and obtuse inferences. So if that's of interest, welcome. Again.
This week: All Things Russia.
Things have been happening so quickly in politics it seems a waste to dwell on past events, ie like last week, so this newly-resurgent blog will pick up with events of the day, today. And that means Russia, the resignation/firing of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and what might mean to the fledgling Presidency. I'll cut to the last page; I don't think it's going to mean much. Sorry haters.
Why not? Because Russia has long since lost it's membership in the superpower cool-kids club, and on almost any measurable level, is flirting with irrelevance on the global stage. Hell, no one even buys Russian vodka anymore, unless they're looking for a cheap mixer. Yes, there are a few people in D.C. seem to hate Russia, most notably John McCain, but Sen. McCain came to age in the cold war, and he probably still has a flip phone too. But do average 'mericans care? Let me propose to you a hypothetical scenario. Say in the battle vs. ISIS there's the opportunity to score a major victory, but in order to do so it means collaborating with Russia to insure success. Do you do it? I'm betting the majority of Americans, Trump-supporter and otherwise, say "yes" without reservation. So the idea of Trump, or one of his lackeys, talking with Russia is pretty much "meh". This seems to be important only within the beltway, and it's my prediction it has a shelf life of less than two weeks. It's just not that interesting. But I digress. Who's important nowadays? China.
Workin' the 'lyin Press
Far more intriguing to me is how the relationship between Trump and the press will evolve over time. Currently, I think Trump is winning. He lies and distorts the truth with impunity, and despite being fact-checked EVERY DAY, somehow it ends up that Trump appears the persecuted one. What gives? First, I think that, by and large (full disclosure #2, I don't watch Fox so can't comment on their coverage. maybe later. A lot later), the mainstream media is largely playing a game of "inside baseball" that most Americans, except for yours truly, simply don't care about. Americans not currently in political office frankly have other things they care about. Like their jobs, what's for dinner, and who's getting the rose on The Bachelor. Fake news and the lying press? Tell it to someone who cares. The weird thing is, for everyone from CNN to Saturday Night Live, Trump is like catnip. TV and the press cannot resist him. He's a ratings dream, driving up SNL viewership to record levels, along with the ratings for the major news networks. So while they complain, they can't stop covering him. Hey, sorry, but it's business. It's ratings.
What to really be worried about.
It's my strong hunch that, among some of the folks driving the Trump foreign policy bus, the "real" enemy of America is Islam (not even "radical Islam", that's just verbiage intended to temper the overt charges of racism), which has replaced Communism as the bogeyman of American foreign policy. The architect of this worldview is Steve Bannon, the President's Chief Strategist, but the perspective seems to be shared by others in the Bannon camp, namely Stephen Miller, the White House adviser, and the recently-departed Gen. Flynn. It's my opinion (and why I'm presuming you're visiting the blog in the first place) that the overtures to the Russian government on the part of the Trump administration are an attempt to lay a groundwork for a unified attack against Islam, personified today as ISIS, but ultimately, a comprehensive and institutional attack against the religion itself. That's heavy, but I think that's Bannon's ultimate goal, waging a war, existential AND physical, between Judeo-Christian ideology and Islam. Warriors need wars. What's the danger? Simply, that this perspective may find traction with a large number of otherwise rational Americans. Remember, the infamous "Muslim ban" that Trump campaigned on was in fact the single most supported policy position among his supporters. Want more proof? He won, remember? Not that it hasn't happened before, look at the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2. Yup, our country. America. Land of the free, yada yada yada. Until it isn't. Fear does stuff like that. Why shouldn't it be different now? Isn't 9/11 the Pearl Harbor for this generation? For the Bannon wing of the Trump administration, and for many "regular" Americans who feel they've gotten the short end of the stick in the growing disparity between "haves" and "have nots", the "new" world war is the war against Islam. It's concerning, mostly because it's turned out poorly before.
Strangely enough, the saving grace from this worrisome worldview may ironically be found in the members of the administration who bring a lengthy record of military service, and by association institutional memory. Secy. of Defense Mattis, and Secy. of Homeland Security Kelly are both Cabinet members and decorated veterans, and likewise both have a record of NOT being extreme in their idea of a "new world order". I get the impression that they both continue to engender strong support in Washington, and hopefully are in a position to exert a moderating influence on the activities of the Oval Office. That remains to be seen.
But back to Trump. What does he think? Does he think? I find is puzzling that the many that hated Trump because they thought he was/is a shallow reality TV buffoon now view him as some sinister master strategist. I don't think you can have it both ways. I think a clear, yet somewhat jaundiced (or orange-ish, if you prefer), look at Trump's history consistently shows a non-ideologue, certainly nothing on the scale of a Bannon or even, politically speaking, a Paul Ryan, a "real" conservative. Trump's history consistently points to a very pragmatic flavor of Capitalism, clothed in a large orange narcissistic wrapper of self-promotion. He can be pro-life, pro-choice, Democrat, or Republican, whatever in the end nets him more money. But an ideologue? There's little if any evidence. So do I think he "directed" Flynn to contact the Ruskies? Doubt it. Bannon? That's another story. You betcha.
I think the fledgling administration is starting as Reince Prebus handling domestic policy issues, and Bannon and Co. steering foreign policy, including immigration. For Reince, that will mean inheriting the mess that is the Affordable Care Act, ie Obamacare, which is shaping up to be a domestic version of Viet Nam, a never-ending war. My advice would be to dump it on the GOP Congress, they asked for it, let them "fix" it.
That's enough for this newly un-retired blogger, there's always more news lately. But, in this strange new world, I will add some gentle advice at the end of this new edition of the blog. Dislike Trump's policies? Get in line. But hate is a pretty limiting strategy, both in politics and in life in general. Yoda said it best:
Thanks for reading, welcome back. N.B. I don't really have an idea how much longer the blog will last, but as long as there's material (political) I'll be here to provide an alternative commentary. For better or worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment