In the wake of Facebook, YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify (and possibly others) banning Alex Jones from their platforms and purging all of his content, I'm seeing a handful of people (some of whom have fairly large audiences) criticizing the social media companies for what they are calling corporate censorship. The main thrust of this argument seems to be that in allowing the social
media companies to ban Alex Jones, we have granted a handful of tech
CEOs the power to "determine what 'content' should and should not be available for public consumption", to use one person's phrasing. While a handful of companies wielding disproportionate control over the media, with little transparency or accountability, is certainly something we should worry about almost as much as government censorship, what happened to Alex Jones is not a particularly good example of it.
I want to emphasize that none of these people are defending Alex Jones. None. What they are taking issue with is the social media platforms censoring a content creator without any apparent transparency, accountability, or due process. However, that complaint is baseless, for a number of reasons.
First, the obvious point: the First Amendment only restricts what the government can do. It doesn't give citizens any protection from private businesses. Facebook and the other platforms can ban someone at any time for violating their Terms of Service. Users acknowledge that and implicitly agree when they sign up to use the site and check "okay" on the ToS button. These platforms have had the authority to ban Alex Jones the entire time he's been using their service, they just chose not to exercise it until now.
Second, the near-simultaneous decision by multiple platforms to drop Alex Jones gives the impression that the decision was sudden and arbitrary. It wasn't. Alex Jones has been a controversy magnet for years. He has repeatedly labeled survivors of the Sandy Hook school shooting, as well as relatives and friends of the victims, "crisis actors." In fact, he's dwelled on this point so much that the parents of one victim have had to move seven times, and he is currently on trial for defamation, in a lawsuit brought by families of the victims. So lest you think this came out of nowhere, it has been building for a long time.
Additionally, the social media CEOs were not acting (entirely) on their own initiative. They were responding to public pressure to remove Jones' videos, etc, from their platforms. That means it's hardly a decision made in isolation. In fact, given Jones' track record of controversy, it's a bit surprising he has lasted as long as he has.
Third, Alex Jones was an outlier. Some content providers are worried about the precedent this might set, but unless you're harassing victims of a mass shooting, it's safe to say that you won't end up on YouTube's/Spotify's/Facebook's radar. So relax, nobody is coming to boot you off their platform.
Fourth, the barriers to entry on any of these sites is nonexistent. Now, iTunes requires a little bit of technical know-how as far as recording, editing, and uploading a podcast; but that's pretty much as far as it goes. For the most part, all you have to do is know how to create an account and upload content. So the idea that we're all suddenly at the "tech overlords' mercy" is laughable. They won't even care unless your content draws a lot of complaints, and even then that's not a given. Hell, I see more people complaining about the lack of policing on social media.
Fifth, James Gunn. He's been in the news lately, so the name probably sounds familiar. The reason he's in the news is Disney fired him because of a handful of inappropriate tweets he posted a few years back. Not even close to the level of the bile Alex Jones spews, but still inappropriate. Here's why I'm bringing him up. Gunn certainly needs to be held accountable for those, but the difference between Gunn and Jones is that Gunn grew and changed, and now he contributes something meaningful to society. He eventually cleaned up his act, got better at his craft, and went on to deliver some top-notch work. (Seriously. Guardians of the Galaxy is an awesome film.) These days, Gunn is also widely respected by the actors and film crews he works with, and has a growing movement dedicated to getting him reinstated because of his artistic contributions. The point is that you contribute something to society, your fans and peers will back you up. Can anyone argue in good faith that Alex Jones has made a meaningful contribution?
Now, people should be worried when news outlets gradually morph into an increasingly-consolidated oligarch-like structure (for example, the "Big Six Media" or the current Sinclair Broadcast Group situation.) But social media is not like that. It's opened the door to a multitude of news and information outlets. Take Twitter: because of it, I've been able to follow literally dozens of news agencies from around the world: Balkan Insight, Der Spiegel, Euronews, to list a few. And thanks to iTunes, I can find a podcast covering just about any niche topic I find interesting. So good, independent sources of news are out there, and social media has helped make that possible.
So, to everyone getting worked up about Alex Jones getting sent packing: relax. It's not - repeat, not - going to usher in some new era of censorship.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Thursday, August 2, 2018
An Unorthodox Proposal
First off, a nod to Jonathan Swift for providing the inspiration for this post's title. Now, on with the show.
Alright, look. It's obvious that America's current system of choosing a president isn't working. 320 million people, and one of the final two candidates we could come up with - the one who went on to win* - was Donald Trump? That was the best we could do? Really, America?!?
You'll notice I didn't mention Hillary Clinton in the above paragraph. That was intentional. I didn't want to lump her in with Trump. Sure, Hillary Clinton had a fair amount of political baggage. Some of it was deserved and of her own doing, but the overwhelming majority of it turned out to be baseless accusations peddled by the right-wing smear machine. But she was also the most qualified candidate, by far, and she was certainly miles ahead of the walking, breathing dumpster fire currently occupying the White House.
Whoops, I got distracted and went off on a tangent there.
Back to my main point, which is that the current process for electing a president is in desperate need of reform. I don't want to get too into the weeds talking about how the institutional mechanisms in place need to be modified, although I will say that the Electoral College needs to be revamped, the Voting Rights Act needs to be restored, and alternative ideas like ranked-choice voting and holding primaries on weekends (when more people can participate) need to be at least looked at.
No, the change I propose is more tonal than structural. Here's my idea. Instead of the current handful of campaign debates, which are nearly worthless spectacles, we have each party's candidate (it would have to be after the primaries, because in the past couple presidential elections there would be too many candidates for this to work) undergo some kind of exam by a select panel of experts in various relevant areas.
For example, say we want to evaluate a candidate's knowledge on foreign policy. We gather a team of experts in all the areas foreign policy could be expected to cover: economics & trade, science, military strategy, and so on. Then these experts ask the candidates a bunch of questions, to gauge their knowledge. Now, the questions could take any kind of format - I'm not too choosy. It could be an in-person panel, like a job interview; or it could be like a college-level exam.
The point - and this is the important part - is that the results of the Q & A are made public, to see just how much a certain candidate knows (or doesn't know.) If it's a panel interview, record it and play it on all the news networks later. If it's a written test, publish it in a special insert in every major newspaper, and post it online. Also, just like any other test (which is essentially what this is), the candidate's performance is scored. 1 - 100, just like most tests. Any candidate who scores too low is disqualified from running.
And that's it. We wouldn't change anything else about how votes are cast or counted, we'd just replace debates with a process that (hopefully) prevented the country from electing a complete idiot.
I don't expect this to be adopted, of course. It's pretty much got a snowball's chance in hell. But I don't think anyone will dispute that elections have become way too much like a popularity contest - a certain level of that is always expected, but it's getting ridiculous.
Anyway, I was just throwing this idea out there.
* Russia helped Trump win
Alright, look. It's obvious that America's current system of choosing a president isn't working. 320 million people, and one of the final two candidates we could come up with - the one who went on to win* - was Donald Trump? That was the best we could do? Really, America?!?
You'll notice I didn't mention Hillary Clinton in the above paragraph. That was intentional. I didn't want to lump her in with Trump. Sure, Hillary Clinton had a fair amount of political baggage. Some of it was deserved and of her own doing, but the overwhelming majority of it turned out to be baseless accusations peddled by the right-wing smear machine. But she was also the most qualified candidate, by far, and she was certainly miles ahead of the walking, breathing dumpster fire currently occupying the White House.
Whoops, I got distracted and went off on a tangent there.
Back to my main point, which is that the current process for electing a president is in desperate need of reform. I don't want to get too into the weeds talking about how the institutional mechanisms in place need to be modified, although I will say that the Electoral College needs to be revamped, the Voting Rights Act needs to be restored, and alternative ideas like ranked-choice voting and holding primaries on weekends (when more people can participate) need to be at least looked at.
No, the change I propose is more tonal than structural. Here's my idea. Instead of the current handful of campaign debates, which are nearly worthless spectacles, we have each party's candidate (it would have to be after the primaries, because in the past couple presidential elections there would be too many candidates for this to work) undergo some kind of exam by a select panel of experts in various relevant areas.
For example, say we want to evaluate a candidate's knowledge on foreign policy. We gather a team of experts in all the areas foreign policy could be expected to cover: economics & trade, science, military strategy, and so on. Then these experts ask the candidates a bunch of questions, to gauge their knowledge. Now, the questions could take any kind of format - I'm not too choosy. It could be an in-person panel, like a job interview; or it could be like a college-level exam.
The point - and this is the important part - is that the results of the Q & A are made public, to see just how much a certain candidate knows (or doesn't know.) If it's a panel interview, record it and play it on all the news networks later. If it's a written test, publish it in a special insert in every major newspaper, and post it online. Also, just like any other test (which is essentially what this is), the candidate's performance is scored. 1 - 100, just like most tests. Any candidate who scores too low is disqualified from running.
And that's it. We wouldn't change anything else about how votes are cast or counted, we'd just replace debates with a process that (hopefully) prevented the country from electing a complete idiot.
I don't expect this to be adopted, of course. It's pretty much got a snowball's chance in hell. But I don't think anyone will dispute that elections have become way too much like a popularity contest - a certain level of that is always expected, but it's getting ridiculous.
Anyway, I was just throwing this idea out there.
* Russia helped Trump win
Sunday, July 29, 2018
New Developments (Maybe) in Afghanistan
Some interesting news coming out of Afghanistan. It looks like US troops are pulling back from the countryside and focusing on the cities. Additionally, the mission seems to be shifting to a defensive one: pulling security and protecting the troops vs clearing/holding territory and expanding outward. Meanwhile, our government has reportedly negotiated directly with the Taliban in Qatar.
I'm no Clausewitz, but it looks to me like the US is starting to wind down, and may be in the early stages of withdrawing from Afghanistan.
I'm not a fan of leaving the Afghan government out of the negotiations. It's their country, after all. But somehow, I think it'll be okay. I'm betting that a lot of Afghan gov't officials and military personnel will strike deals with the Taliban the day after we leave. Hell, I bet a lot of them are closet members of the Taliban, or some other militia, already.
Or maybe I'm just telling myself that to rationalize the US leaving a weak & fragile frenemy government in the lurch.
I'm not a fan of cutting the Afghan government out of the negotiations. Some of them genuinely put their faith in us, have worked with us toward building a stable & safe Afghanistan, and a few have even fought, bled, and died to make that vision a reality. Excluding them is a slap in the face, and is a cowardly move.
However, so is leaving. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of that. But here's the thing. The way we were going, we are not any closer to success now than we were in 2002. We have troops controlling every piece of the country, from one end to the other. We have the most technologically-advanced military on the planet, with some of the most fearsome weaponry invented. But none of that matters, because Afghanistan is about as unconquerable as it gets. The last person who came close was Alexander the Great. Just about every nation since then has eventually been chased out in defeat.
The US will likely be no different. No matter if we stay another year, another five years, or another fifty years. Now, maybe if we had gone about it differently - maybe if we had established an overwhelming humanitarian presence in 2001/02, instead of letting combat ops largely drive the mission - we could have succeeded. Maybe if we had brought in State and USAID, had invested billions in rebuilding the country's infrastructure, had put locals to work demining, planting crops, building roads, a power grid, water treatment facilities, and schools. Maybe that would have transformed Afghanistan into a success story.
Maybe.
But that's a lot of water under the bridge, and we'll never know how it turned out. 2001/02 was arguably our one shot at that, because with everything that happened afterward - Iraq, the financial crisis, the ACA - we never had the money or manpower or political will to try again.
And some seventeen years later, it's long past time to cut our losses. All the money we've spent on Afghanistan, in one form or another, might as well have been put in a pile and set on fire, for all the return on investment that the US got. To say nothing of the thousands of dead and crippled Americans and Afghans the war has produced.
I would hate it if Afghanistan became another example of blowback - if our ostensible allies today become our enemies in a decade or two. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened, not even the first time in Afghanistan.
So while I am really, really dismayed and disgusted that we're leaving the Afghan government twisting in the wind, I support the decision to wind things down and leave - if that indeed turns out to be the case.
I'm no Clausewitz, but it looks to me like the US is starting to wind down, and may be in the early stages of withdrawing from Afghanistan.
I'm not a fan of leaving the Afghan government out of the negotiations. It's their country, after all. But somehow, I think it'll be okay. I'm betting that a lot of Afghan gov't officials and military personnel will strike deals with the Taliban the day after we leave. Hell, I bet a lot of them are closet members of the Taliban, or some other militia, already.
Or maybe I'm just telling myself that to rationalize the US leaving a weak & fragile frenemy government in the lurch.
I'm not a fan of cutting the Afghan government out of the negotiations. Some of them genuinely put their faith in us, have worked with us toward building a stable & safe Afghanistan, and a few have even fought, bled, and died to make that vision a reality. Excluding them is a slap in the face, and is a cowardly move.
However, so is leaving. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of that. But here's the thing. The way we were going, we are not any closer to success now than we were in 2002. We have troops controlling every piece of the country, from one end to the other. We have the most technologically-advanced military on the planet, with some of the most fearsome weaponry invented. But none of that matters, because Afghanistan is about as unconquerable as it gets. The last person who came close was Alexander the Great. Just about every nation since then has eventually been chased out in defeat.
The US will likely be no different. No matter if we stay another year, another five years, or another fifty years. Now, maybe if we had gone about it differently - maybe if we had established an overwhelming humanitarian presence in 2001/02, instead of letting combat ops largely drive the mission - we could have succeeded. Maybe if we had brought in State and USAID, had invested billions in rebuilding the country's infrastructure, had put locals to work demining, planting crops, building roads, a power grid, water treatment facilities, and schools. Maybe that would have transformed Afghanistan into a success story.
Maybe.
But that's a lot of water under the bridge, and we'll never know how it turned out. 2001/02 was arguably our one shot at that, because with everything that happened afterward - Iraq, the financial crisis, the ACA - we never had the money or manpower or political will to try again.
And some seventeen years later, it's long past time to cut our losses. All the money we've spent on Afghanistan, in one form or another, might as well have been put in a pile and set on fire, for all the return on investment that the US got. To say nothing of the thousands of dead and crippled Americans and Afghans the war has produced.
I would hate it if Afghanistan became another example of blowback - if our ostensible allies today become our enemies in a decade or two. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened, not even the first time in Afghanistan.
So while I am really, really dismayed and disgusted that we're leaving the Afghan government twisting in the wind, I support the decision to wind things down and leave - if that indeed turns out to be the case.
PS: Before someone asks, I realize that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, if it happens, will likely be on Trump's watch. Meaning that I have to give him credit for something. I'm okay with that. Now, it remains to be seen whether he screws it up somehow, like he has just about everything else. It's also worth asking whether he's doing this on Russia's behalf, for some reason we're not yet aware of. (Paranoid? Sure. But given his past actions, it's a question worth raising.) But ultimately, I agree with what he's doing here. It doesn't even come close to cancelling out all the disastrous decisions he's made, but it is a pretty big item on the plus side of the ledger.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Trump's Helsinki Fiasco
Since Donald Trump became president, I've often reacted to news stories with disgust, anger, frustration, fear, or a combination of the four; but I've only been distressed over current events to the point of losing sleep twice. November 9, 2016 - the night Trump won the election - was one. Last night was another. I have a Chicken Little-type tendency to assume the worst and engage in panicked hyperbole at the earliest sign of bad news, and it's a reflex that I have to work hard to keep in check. However, in light of recent events, I don't think it's a big stretch to say that the United States is in a bad spot.
On July 16th, in a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump rejected the United States intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, instead choosing to take Russian President Putin at his word. Trump's refusal to acknowledge this conclusion is significant for two reasons. First, it wasn't one or two intelligence agencies making that claim, it was the entire intelligence community's unanimous assessment. Second, on June 13, Special Counsel Mueller had indicted a dozen GRU agents for hacking into the DNC's computer networks (among other targets) to acquire information it intended to use to interfere with the 2016 elections. That second reason is particularly significant because any case that's going to be made in court requires hard, tangible evidence. This case, especially. Mueller is accusing foreign nationals of committing a cyber-crime against US government-affiliated institutions. Even though the best-case scenario is that the dozen GRU agents will be tried in absentia - if there's a trial at all - Mueller's case needs to be as close to airtight as possible, because of the stakes involved.
Taken together, the intelligence community's assessment and Mueller's indictments mean that the conclusion is pretty conclusive: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Yet the President of the United States chose to disregard his own intelligence apparatus' conclusion.
Why did he do that? Or, to ask the question another way, why is Trump so quick to believe Putin? Well, there are a couple of different possibilities. One is that Trump's ego is driving all of this. If he had to acknowledge that Russia's interference contributed to his victory, it takes some of the glow off of his win. That would be a crushing blow to his pride. Another possibility is Trump's well-documented affinity for dictators and strongmen. Putin isn't the only authoritarian who Trump has fawned over, but he does seem to hold the place of honor in Trump's hall of heroes. Yet another possibility is that Trump has a relationship with the Russian government that goes back decades. Jonathan Chait's recent piece about this has been making the rounds, but Sarah Kendzior has a one-year lead on him. I'd stop short of calling Trump a Russian "asset" (that word has certain HUMINT connotations), but I think "useful idiot" is more fitting. I think the Russian government saw Trump as an easy-to-manipulate pawn, and they played him like a fiddle.
And if the Helsinki presser is any indication, Russia is still playing him. That is about as terrifying as it gets. It tells all of America's allies that the President of the United States can't be trusted. It tells hostile nations that the United States won't push back if another cyber-attack happens. It tells the world that Trump won't do anything to protect America's national security. And it tells Russia it has unlimited license to do what it wants. Trump's performance in Helsinki also adds credibility to long-running suspicions that his loyalty is to Russia.
And while Trump has been enabling Russia, the GOP has been running interference for him. A handful of its key leaders had a reasonable suspicion in mid-2016 that Trump had an allegiance to Russia, but they kept it a secret. Its Senate majority leader knew that Russia hacked the DNC, but he refused to publicly confirm that information. The GOP has tried to undermine Robert Mueller's investigation at every turn - by holding dog-and-pony shows like the Strzok hearings; by spreading falsehoods in the news and on social media; and by refusing to act in response to a growing mountain of evidence that Russia tampered with the 2016 election results, and that the Trump campaign was involved in that effort.
So why is the GOP so committed to helping Trump?
Because the party's future has been tied to Trump since 2015, and it will continue to need him for the next few years. He helped the GOP win it the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2016, establishing a fast-track for the GOP's legislative agenda. (Although there have been a handful of self-inflicted injuries.) He appointed ideologically sympathetic judges to several courts, including two (pending Kavanaugh's confirmation) Supreme Court Justices, allowing conservatives to interpret the law for a generation. And possibly most important of all, he brought a political party that looked like it was dying back to life, by hitting all the right notes that resonate with the conservative base: a tough stance on immigration; a strong, fearsome military; law and order with a draconian flavor; pro-business; anti-regulation - all the things they want to hear. The fact that his actual track record is pretty dismal is irrelevant. Trump has hit upon a winning political formula that will keep the GOP in the game for several more election cycles. And all they have to do is turn a blind eye to someone who never bothered to hide his disdain for American and democratic institutions and ideals.
Which is something they will gladly do, if current events are any indication. That makes them complicit in Trump's war on American security and well-being. Putting party over country in normal circumstances is, well, politics. Putting party over country in the wake of a cyber-attack that most likely influenced the outcome of a presidential election is dereliction of duty. Trump's conduct in Helsinki shows that he represents a danger to the United States, and he has far exceeded the threshold for being removed from office. And his enablers in Congress - McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, all of them - I don't know if what they did is considered a crime, but if it is, they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It won't be enough to simply vote them out of office. Simply voting them out means they become the objects of scorn for a few years, and that's pretty much it. That can't be allowed to happen. They need to be made into examples, to discourage future of politicians from doing the same thing. Trials need to be held. Prison sentences need to be handed down. Safeguards need to be put into place to keep it from happening again.
Because none of this will simply revert back to normal the day after Trump leaves office. The damage being done - to our relationships with our allies, to our global reputation, to our citizens' faith in government - will take years to be repaired. And the longer it goes on, the worse the damage will be.
On July 16th, in a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump rejected the United States intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, instead choosing to take Russian President Putin at his word. Trump's refusal to acknowledge this conclusion is significant for two reasons. First, it wasn't one or two intelligence agencies making that claim, it was the entire intelligence community's unanimous assessment. Second, on June 13, Special Counsel Mueller had indicted a dozen GRU agents for hacking into the DNC's computer networks (among other targets) to acquire information it intended to use to interfere with the 2016 elections. That second reason is particularly significant because any case that's going to be made in court requires hard, tangible evidence. This case, especially. Mueller is accusing foreign nationals of committing a cyber-crime against US government-affiliated institutions. Even though the best-case scenario is that the dozen GRU agents will be tried in absentia - if there's a trial at all - Mueller's case needs to be as close to airtight as possible, because of the stakes involved.
Taken together, the intelligence community's assessment and Mueller's indictments mean that the conclusion is pretty conclusive: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Yet the President of the United States chose to disregard his own intelligence apparatus' conclusion.
Why did he do that? Or, to ask the question another way, why is Trump so quick to believe Putin? Well, there are a couple of different possibilities. One is that Trump's ego is driving all of this. If he had to acknowledge that Russia's interference contributed to his victory, it takes some of the glow off of his win. That would be a crushing blow to his pride. Another possibility is Trump's well-documented affinity for dictators and strongmen. Putin isn't the only authoritarian who Trump has fawned over, but he does seem to hold the place of honor in Trump's hall of heroes. Yet another possibility is that Trump has a relationship with the Russian government that goes back decades. Jonathan Chait's recent piece about this has been making the rounds, but Sarah Kendzior has a one-year lead on him. I'd stop short of calling Trump a Russian "asset" (that word has certain HUMINT connotations), but I think "useful idiot" is more fitting. I think the Russian government saw Trump as an easy-to-manipulate pawn, and they played him like a fiddle.
And if the Helsinki presser is any indication, Russia is still playing him. That is about as terrifying as it gets. It tells all of America's allies that the President of the United States can't be trusted. It tells hostile nations that the United States won't push back if another cyber-attack happens. It tells the world that Trump won't do anything to protect America's national security. And it tells Russia it has unlimited license to do what it wants. Trump's performance in Helsinki also adds credibility to long-running suspicions that his loyalty is to Russia.
And while Trump has been enabling Russia, the GOP has been running interference for him. A handful of its key leaders had a reasonable suspicion in mid-2016 that Trump had an allegiance to Russia, but they kept it a secret. Its Senate majority leader knew that Russia hacked the DNC, but he refused to publicly confirm that information. The GOP has tried to undermine Robert Mueller's investigation at every turn - by holding dog-and-pony shows like the Strzok hearings; by spreading falsehoods in the news and on social media; and by refusing to act in response to a growing mountain of evidence that Russia tampered with the 2016 election results, and that the Trump campaign was involved in that effort.
So why is the GOP so committed to helping Trump?
Because the party's future has been tied to Trump since 2015, and it will continue to need him for the next few years. He helped the GOP win it the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2016, establishing a fast-track for the GOP's legislative agenda. (Although there have been a handful of self-inflicted injuries.) He appointed ideologically sympathetic judges to several courts, including two (pending Kavanaugh's confirmation) Supreme Court Justices, allowing conservatives to interpret the law for a generation. And possibly most important of all, he brought a political party that looked like it was dying back to life, by hitting all the right notes that resonate with the conservative base: a tough stance on immigration; a strong, fearsome military; law and order with a draconian flavor; pro-business; anti-regulation - all the things they want to hear. The fact that his actual track record is pretty dismal is irrelevant. Trump has hit upon a winning political formula that will keep the GOP in the game for several more election cycles. And all they have to do is turn a blind eye to someone who never bothered to hide his disdain for American and democratic institutions and ideals.
Which is something they will gladly do, if current events are any indication. That makes them complicit in Trump's war on American security and well-being. Putting party over country in normal circumstances is, well, politics. Putting party over country in the wake of a cyber-attack that most likely influenced the outcome of a presidential election is dereliction of duty. Trump's conduct in Helsinki shows that he represents a danger to the United States, and he has far exceeded the threshold for being removed from office. And his enablers in Congress - McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, all of them - I don't know if what they did is considered a crime, but if it is, they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It won't be enough to simply vote them out of office. Simply voting them out means they become the objects of scorn for a few years, and that's pretty much it. That can't be allowed to happen. They need to be made into examples, to discourage future of politicians from doing the same thing. Trials need to be held. Prison sentences need to be handed down. Safeguards need to be put into place to keep it from happening again.
Because none of this will simply revert back to normal the day after Trump leaves office. The damage being done - to our relationships with our allies, to our global reputation, to our citizens' faith in government - will take years to be repaired. And the longer it goes on, the worse the damage will be.
Friday, July 13, 2018
. . . And the Zen Master Says, "We'll See."
Gust: There's a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse... and everybody in the village says, "how wonderful. The boy got a horse" And the Zen master says, "we'll see." Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, "How terrible." And the Zen master says, "We'll see." Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight..Except the boy can't cause his leg's all messed up. and everybody in the village says, "How wonderful."
Charlie: And the Zen master says, "We'll see."
Gust: So you get it.
Charlie: No. No, 'cuz I'm stupid.
Gust: You're not stupid, you're just in Congress.
Charlie: Send 'em money. . .
Gust: Gonna start with the roads, move on to the schools, factories -
Charlie: Gust, now, it's a party.
Gust: - restock the sheep herds. Give them jobs, give them hope.
Charlie: I'm trying. I'm trying.
Gust: Yeah, well, try harder.
Charlie: I'm fighting for every dollar.
Gust: Yeah. Yeah.
Charlie: I took you from five million to a billion. I broke the ice on the Stinger and the Milan. I got a Democratic congress in lockstep behind a Republican president.
However, it's a decision that should absolutely not be entrusted to someone like Donald Trump - a person who isn't smart or interested enough to understand the scope or consequences of his decisions, who doesn't have any concern for the people who get hurt by his decisions, and whose loyalty to the United States is under heavy suspicion.
So, to recap: making complicated decisions, including ones about America's involvement in NATO, are not off-the-cuff decisions.
Also, Donald Trump is an idiot.
Charlie: And the Zen master says, "We'll see."
Gust: So you get it.
Charlie: No. No, 'cuz I'm stupid.
Gust: You're not stupid, you're just in Congress.
Charlie: Send 'em money. . .
Gust: Gonna start with the roads, move on to the schools, factories -
Charlie: Gust, now, it's a party.
Gust: - restock the sheep herds. Give them jobs, give them hope.
Charlie: I'm trying. I'm trying.
Gust: Yeah, well, try harder.
Charlie: I'm fighting for every dollar.
Gust: Yeah. Yeah.
Charlie: I took you from five million to a billion. I broke the ice on the Stinger and the Milan. I got a Democratic congress in lockstep behind a Republican president.
Gust: Well, that's not good enough. Because I'm gonna hand you a code-word classified NIE right now, and it's gonna tell you that the crazies have started rolling into Kandahar like it's a fucking bathtub drain. -- Charlie Wilson's War
You can't solve complex problems with simple fixes.
I don't like Donald Trump. Anyone who reads my blog, who follows me on social media, or who knows me in real life knows this. I haven't been shy about expressing my dislike. And it's not hard to understand why - he's given people countless reasons to despise him. The problem is that it's easy for that dislike to become an instinctive response - to reflexively say "Trump's screwing up again" when events call for a more nuanced analysis. When that happens, your criticisms become contradictory yourself ("Trump did A Thing which is wrong and stupid", and a few days later, "Trump did the opposite of A Thing, which is also wrong and stupid.") At that point, you've basically become a robot that squawks "Trump sucks" whenever he does anything. You begin to overlook nuance and exercise critical thinking, and you're completely blind to the possibility of anything good coming out of his decisions.
For example, Trump and the recent NATO summit. Since becoming president, Trump has repeatedly accused other NATO members of not paying their fair share. That's a flagrant distortion of the facts, but it's not what I want to write about.
It's not much of a secret that Trump isn't a big fan of international alliances - trade, military, or otherwise. He's slammed NATO several times, among other international partnerships. Here's the plot twist, though: I've never been a big fan of international military alliances and America's global military presence, so you'd think I'd be celebrating someone's efforts to disentangle the US from these commitments. That's what Trump seems to be doing, little by little, so you'd think I'd be celebrating what he's doing. Yet, I'm not.
So, why is that?
Is it because I despise Trump so much that I automatically oppose his position, no matter whatever it is? My opinions on a handful of issues have changed so significantly since Trump took office, that some people probably think so. I've asked myself that more than once, and it's possible.
But it's much more likely that it was obvious from the start of his presidential campaign that Trump wasn't up to the task. Even overlooking his history of corruption (much of which only came out after the 2016 election), Trump never exhibited the ability or the desire to understand the complexities of any of the issues he would grapple with as president.
Being president is, obviously, hard. Every decision the president makes is restricted by a number of factors: economic consequences, domestic and international political considerations, precedent, long-term policy goals, and on and on and on. Seriously, go read any book about a president finding a solution to any given issue, let alone a serious crisis, to see just how many variables they have to consider when tackling the problem. You begin to see just how little room a president has to maneuver.
So back to NATO. For the sake of argument, let's treat it as a given that it's one of those entangling alliances the Founders warned us about. (Whether it really is is a discussion for another time.) How does the United States extract itself from the organization? That's the big question. NATO has been around since not long after World War II ended, even though the Soviet Union - the adversary it was created to counter - dissolved in the early 1990s. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there have been four US presidents besides Trump: Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. Why didn't any of them address the question of NATO, and lay the groundwork for scaling back America's involvement? All of them seem to be fairly capable and competent, at least enough to get the ball rolling on this.
There are a couple different explanations for why they didn't. Maybe it turned out that NATO was in America's interest - that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. That's the simplest explanation, right? Or maybe it was impossible to examine the partnership with NATO independent of a multitude of other factors, such as international economics, to name just one. Maybe those four presidents looked at the intricate web of connections between America and the other members of NATO, realized that cutting one thread would affect countless other threads, and concluded the sheer complexity made doing so difficult, if not impossible.
Does that mean some sort of "cutting the Gordian knot" solution is the only way out of an otherwise unsolvable problem? I guess in this situation would mean just up and leaving NATO. How would that play out? Well, here are a few questions that it would raise:
- What happens to all the US troops stationed in NATO countries? Do they get redeployed to the United States, or stay on US bases in Europe?
- What happens if they're redeployed - where do we station them, and what do we have them do? Can we muster them out of the military, and can the economy handle the sudden influx of separated troops?
- What about the bases themselves - do we turn them over to their host nations? Do we need to negotiate new SOFAs with each NATO nation?
- How will this affect current military operations? How will the US get troops from CONUS to the Afghanistan or Iraq theaters? What about supplies?
- Will this affect trade relationships with the other NATO nations, and if so, how?
- How will NATO fill the vacuum left by America's withdrawal or downsizing? That is not an insignificant question, and answering it could require enough research to complete a book.
However, it's a decision that should absolutely not be entrusted to someone like Donald Trump - a person who isn't smart or interested enough to understand the scope or consequences of his decisions, who doesn't have any concern for the people who get hurt by his decisions, and whose loyalty to the United States is under heavy suspicion.
So, to recap: making complicated decisions, including ones about America's involvement in NATO, are not off-the-cuff decisions.
Also, Donald Trump is an idiot.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
American Values in the Trump Era
I saw a Facebook post over the weekend, containing the line "What the fuck happened, America?" The post's author didn't specifically state what it was written in response to, but it's not hard to guess. Over the weekend, the story broke that the Trump administration had directed Customs and Border Patrol to specifically begin splitting up families that cross into America's southern border. The children are housed in Spartan detention camps, while the parents are presumably deported.
Read that again. The Trump administration ordered CBP to split up families who cross into the United States from the south. CBP went right along with it, without hesitation. And many of his followers rationalized what the administration was doing. Some even cheered.
"What the fuck happened," indeed.
This policy (it is absolutely NOT a law, and don't believe otherwise) is intentionally cruel and appalling; and if you're not shocked by it, you need to recalibrate your moral compass. But the truth is, it didn't just come out of nowhere - in more ways than one. First, the United States government has been party to other inhumane practices, both large and small throughout its history. You probably know of some of the bigger ones: slavery, the Tuskeegee Experiments, interning Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and the Trail of Tears, to name a few. As for the smaller ones, the ones that immediately come to mind tend to be more recent. Camp X-Ray, rendition, and "enhanced interrogation" (AKA torture) desensitized us to the government treating non-Americans cruelly. The TSA enacted increasingly invasive and unnecessary security measures while providing no mechanisms for recourse or accountability for abuses of authority, and many people shrugged their shoulders and accepted its infringements on all of our rights. Ditto with the NSA and its bulk data collection. We largely ignored the Pentagon's 1033 Program, which supplied surplus military hardware to police forces across the nation; and just as the old saying about "when all you have is a hammer..." goes, those police units began adopting more aggressive attitudes and tactics.
The CBP's separation of families is a convergence of all the things I just described: the TSA's lack of accountability, police forces' aggressive posture, and Camp X-Ray's barbaric treatment of non-Americans. And we - American citizens - kind of let it happen by abandoning our civic responsibilities. The more often we turned a blind eye, or halfheartedly protested, the more these practices became entrenched. Acceptable. Widespread.
But that's only part of it. Another huge factor, as I'm sure you can guess, is President Trump. The Trump administration's policy of separating families should not be a surprise, if you paid attention to what Trump said and who he surrounded himself with on the campaign trail. Remember when Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? That was almost three years ago to the day. Trump has never bothered to hide his hatred for Latino immigrants or his racism, and now he's pushing policy in line with his attitudes.
As much as Trump is at the center of this, it's not just about him, though. The family separation policy may have been in the planning for a while, but it was only rolled out recently. Did you notice how quickly CBP fell in line, though? I don't see many people talking about that, except tangentially. I've seen a few articles about how indifferent, even cruel, the CBP officers have acted toward the detained children, but AFAIK nobody has asked how they got that way. Institutional cultures don't shift so radically in such a short time, which means that the CBP behavior we're seeing has been there for a while, just below the surface. Trump's policies may have drawn that cruelty out, but it didn't create it from scratch. Regardless, curbing the CBP excesses will be one of many problems this country faces after Trump leaves office.
I often claim that Trump unleashed this country's ugly side. All the racism, the misogyny, the anti-intellectualism, the corruption and the lying, the obnoxious boasting, and the "burn it all down" style of governing - it didn't originate with Trump. Like the CBP agents, there were a lot of shitbags who Trump has emboldened. They will still be here after Trump is gone, and they won't go quietly. The fallout from the Trump administration will shape politics for decades.
Because this is about a lot more than the family separation policy. It's about Trump's entire worldview, something that informs everything he thinks, says, and does. Think back to Trump's comments about immigrants being criminals and rapists, and how those comments relate to this current family separation policy. Now think about other things Trump said during his campaign. Remember all of his racist and misogynist dog whistles? Remember when he said he'd only acknowledge the election results if he won? Or how he popularized a slogan calling for a political rival to be jailed - and still uses it at rallies and speeches?
Read that again. The Trump administration ordered CBP to split up families who cross into the United States from the south. CBP went right along with it, without hesitation. And many of his followers rationalized what the administration was doing. Some even cheered.
"What the fuck happened," indeed.
This policy (it is absolutely NOT a law, and don't believe otherwise) is intentionally cruel and appalling; and if you're not shocked by it, you need to recalibrate your moral compass. But the truth is, it didn't just come out of nowhere - in more ways than one. First, the United States government has been party to other inhumane practices, both large and small throughout its history. You probably know of some of the bigger ones: slavery, the Tuskeegee Experiments, interning Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and the Trail of Tears, to name a few. As for the smaller ones, the ones that immediately come to mind tend to be more recent. Camp X-Ray, rendition, and "enhanced interrogation" (AKA torture) desensitized us to the government treating non-Americans cruelly. The TSA enacted increasingly invasive and unnecessary security measures while providing no mechanisms for recourse or accountability for abuses of authority, and many people shrugged their shoulders and accepted its infringements on all of our rights. Ditto with the NSA and its bulk data collection. We largely ignored the Pentagon's 1033 Program, which supplied surplus military hardware to police forces across the nation; and just as the old saying about "when all you have is a hammer..." goes, those police units began adopting more aggressive attitudes and tactics.
The CBP's separation of families is a convergence of all the things I just described: the TSA's lack of accountability, police forces' aggressive posture, and Camp X-Ray's barbaric treatment of non-Americans. And we - American citizens - kind of let it happen by abandoning our civic responsibilities. The more often we turned a blind eye, or halfheartedly protested, the more these practices became entrenched. Acceptable. Widespread.
But that's only part of it. Another huge factor, as I'm sure you can guess, is President Trump. The Trump administration's policy of separating families should not be a surprise, if you paid attention to what Trump said and who he surrounded himself with on the campaign trail. Remember when Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? That was almost three years ago to the day. Trump has never bothered to hide his hatred for Latino immigrants or his racism, and now he's pushing policy in line with his attitudes.
As much as Trump is at the center of this, it's not just about him, though. The family separation policy may have been in the planning for a while, but it was only rolled out recently. Did you notice how quickly CBP fell in line, though? I don't see many people talking about that, except tangentially. I've seen a few articles about how indifferent, even cruel, the CBP officers have acted toward the detained children, but AFAIK nobody has asked how they got that way. Institutional cultures don't shift so radically in such a short time, which means that the CBP behavior we're seeing has been there for a while, just below the surface. Trump's policies may have drawn that cruelty out, but it didn't create it from scratch. Regardless, curbing the CBP excesses will be one of many problems this country faces after Trump leaves office.
I often claim that Trump unleashed this country's ugly side. All the racism, the misogyny, the anti-intellectualism, the corruption and the lying, the obnoxious boasting, and the "burn it all down" style of governing - it didn't originate with Trump. Like the CBP agents, there were a lot of shitbags who Trump has emboldened. They will still be here after Trump is gone, and they won't go quietly. The fallout from the Trump administration will shape politics for decades.
Because this is about a lot more than the family separation policy. It's about Trump's entire worldview, something that informs everything he thinks, says, and does. Think back to Trump's comments about immigrants being criminals and rapists, and how those comments relate to this current family separation policy. Now think about other things Trump said during his campaign. Remember all of his racist and misogynist dog whistles? Remember when he said he'd only acknowledge the election results if he won? Or how he popularized a slogan calling for a political rival to be jailed - and still uses it at rallies and speeches?
Does this mean I think we're on the march toward genocide or a dictatorship? That Trump's going to seize control of the government and declare himself emperor or something, or that we'll be herding immigrants, Muslims, and who knows who else into camps? I honestly don't know, but I'm giving both non-zero possibilities at this point. I may very well be overreacting, and there's certainly a significant chance I'm wrong. However, there have been a lot of indicators that Trump wants to do so. He's installed family members in key posts, centralized the decision-making process, made targeting minorities and other protected classes a common theme of his policies, and fawned over more than one totalitarian despot. At the same time, the institutional checks meant to keep a president from seizing power are weakened. The GOP-controlled congress won't stand up to him, because of either cowardice or opportunism - I can't figure out which; and the Democrats suck as an opposition party, because they won't come up with a coherent platform.
They need to, quickly; and they need to fight to win with everything they've got. (Everything legal, of course.) Because if the Trump administration is separating immigrant families today, what will it be doing tomorrow? Will it move on to some other group next after it's done with immigrants, Muslims, or transgender people? As I already said, I don't know. Nobody can predict the future. But that's why it's important to smack down any authoritarian policies early, because by the time people are getting marched to the gas chambers, it's too late.
This isn't a debate about policy any more, it's about morality. Right and wrong. Trump, the members of his administration, his Republican enablers in Congress, and his supporters - they're all embracing a very immoral and un-American set of values. History will someday judge them as villains - IF the rest of us do something about it. Vote, protest, call your elected reps. Do what you can to render the Party of Trump ineffective as a political movement. There should be no place for their ideas and policies in American society.
Because history will judge you too.
They need to, quickly; and they need to fight to win with everything they've got. (Everything legal, of course.) Because if the Trump administration is separating immigrant families today, what will it be doing tomorrow? Will it move on to some other group next after it's done with immigrants, Muslims, or transgender people? As I already said, I don't know. Nobody can predict the future. But that's why it's important to smack down any authoritarian policies early, because by the time people are getting marched to the gas chambers, it's too late.
This isn't a debate about policy any more, it's about morality. Right and wrong. Trump, the members of his administration, his Republican enablers in Congress, and his supporters - they're all embracing a very immoral and un-American set of values. History will someday judge them as villains - IF the rest of us do something about it. Vote, protest, call your elected reps. Do what you can to render the Party of Trump ineffective as a political movement. There should be no place for their ideas and policies in American society.
Because history will judge you too.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Much Ado About Nothing
Thoughts on a recent social media circus. . .
The hugely-publicized summit between the United States and North Korea took place a few days ago, and one of the many things about it that struck me as interesting was people's reactions over how both nations' flags were on display. The American and North Korean flags were posted at the same height, which led some people (although not the ones you think - more on that shortly) to lose their minds.
Honestly, it's a lot of sound and fury over a non-issue. Here's why. Every official meeting between two heads of state, as well as many of their ambassadors, cabinet officials, etc, etc, etc, is planned down to the most minor detail according to a long-standing set of customs and courtesies. They probably come from ancient Roman traditions or practices that became common back when kings and queens were in style. I don't know the history. But the point is that neither country improvised this recent summit.
Here's a fun fact: did you know that the US State Department has a branch just for this sort of thing? It's called the Office of the Chief of Protocol. Here's what it has to say about foreign nations' flags:
Q: What is the order of display for the U.S. flag and a flag of a foreign nation?
A: The two flags should be on separate staffs. Both flags should be the same size and flown at the same height. The U.S. flag is flown in the place of honor, which is to the viewer's left.
So, you see, there's already an established procedure in place for this. I'd bet dollars to donuts that some junior-level worker bees from the US protocol office, and their North Korean counterparts, were feverishly flipping through some thick, hardbound manual to figure out how both nations' flags were displayed.
Do you really think that the same person who can't be bothered to read an intelligence briefing longer than a page seems like a person who gets that involved in the mundane minutiae of a diplomatic ceremony? Hell no. Relax, folks, he probably had very little to do with planning this ceremony; and he certainly didn't micromanage it down to the last detail. And despite his obvious affinity for authoritarians and strongmen, I can guarantee he didn't order the North Korean flag to be at the same level as the US flag.
But that's exactly what you would think he did, based on the level of outrage from some sources. I was expecting some vitriol, and I found plenty of it on Twitter. The anti-Trump crowd was losing its shit. Now, I can certainly understand where they're coming from. If you didn't know about the flag protocol, it appeared that the United States was treating Kim Jong Un as an equal. That's certainly not a good look, given how much blood he has on his hands. But a lot of people should have known better. Maybe not about the specific regulation concerning flags, but at least the general awareness that these kinds of meetings are very traditional and ritualistic and based on established precedent?
Hell, I figured that out because I served in the military, where there's a collection of regulations for damn near every formal event: parades, promotion boards, change of command ceremonies, and so on. The State Department isn't the military, of course, but diplomatic duties involve a fair amount of ceremonies. Therefore, it's not hard to guess that State has regulations for all of those ceremonies, just as the military does.
The people who were coming down on Trump for the flag non-issue should have realized this, or at least been aware of the possibility. There are countless valid reasons to hammer on Trump, but if it becomes an instinctive thing to the point someone lets their loathing override their logic, the anti-Trump crowd is devolving into a tribal mob. I saw what that's like for about eight years, as Hannity, Limbaugh, and a handful of other hacks made it their goal to whip their viewers/listeners into a frothing fury over every little thing. (Hey, remember the "latte salute" incident?) And guess what? It was pretty successful. If the anti-Trump crowd is going to engage in the same kind of knee-jerk resentment, they've become the mirror image of the Hannity/Limbaugh crowd. That doesn't help put the country back on the right path.
I'm curious what they expected, though. Hypothetically, if North Korea ever gives up its nukes and rejoins the global community, there's going to have to be several ceremonies like the one this weekend. International politics often means associating with unsavory people, even the Scum of the Earth. It's not like every nation on earth is governed by perfect saints. On top of that, what would arranging the ceremony to treat Kim as an inferior accomplish? It makes the US look kind of like a bully, and makes North Korea resentful. History buffs know that humiliating a country like that can sometimes backfire spectacularly.
On the other hand, the people who one might expect to get worked up over the flag display have been largely silent. Curious (not really, I'm being rhetorical), considering how worked up those people have gotten over similar supposedly disrespectful behavior toward the American flag. I suspect that if you could draw a Venn diagram of the people who are shrugging and saying "meh" over this particular flag issue and of people who fly into a rage over NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, it would be a near-perfect circle. I guess those people forgot to get outraged this time, because they were too busy fawning over their political savior.
Both sides of this brouhaha are letting their tribal instincts override their common sense. That's hardly a surprise, given how polarized things have gotten. But this is such a ridiculous thing to get fired up over, especially when there's an unexciting, simple explanation. (There are a lot of parties who have a stake in seeing the population get worked up over a relatively inconsequential issue, though, and I might tackle that topic in the future.) Tribalism is a helluva drug, though. It shuts off your critical thinking abilities and turns people into hypocrites.
ADDENDUM: In a postscript to the flag non-issue, President Trump was captured on tape saluting a high-ranking North Korean general. Now, there is a school of thought that a President shouldn't be saluting AT ALL, in accordance with not blurring the line between the military and its civilian leadership - retired Navy Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright wrote a great Twitter thread about it, here. I personally think the Commander in Chief can render a salute without sliding into one of those pseudo-military strongmen that exist around the world, but I do see the logic in what Wright is saying. However, even if military customs and courtesies permitted the Commander in Chief to render salutes, AR 600-25 states that service members only renders salutes to military officers of friendly foreign nations The US and North Korea are technically still in a state of war, so North Korea is not a friendly nation by any stretch.
It's perfectly natural to wonder if the salute was yet another manifestation of Trump's affinity for authoritarian regimes, because there have been so, so many. But there's a saying that goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." I think it applies here. I'm going to chalk this up to stupidity, even though accidentally saluting an officer in a hostile nation's military seems like a pretty damn big brain fart. I'm not going to pin this on some sinister authoritarian explanation, but I'm not letting Trump's dumb ass off the hook either.
The hugely-publicized summit between the United States and North Korea took place a few days ago, and one of the many things about it that struck me as interesting was people's reactions over how both nations' flags were on display. The American and North Korean flags were posted at the same height, which led some people (although not the ones you think - more on that shortly) to lose their minds.
Honestly, it's a lot of sound and fury over a non-issue. Here's why. Every official meeting between two heads of state, as well as many of their ambassadors, cabinet officials, etc, etc, etc, is planned down to the most minor detail according to a long-standing set of customs and courtesies. They probably come from ancient Roman traditions or practices that became common back when kings and queens were in style. I don't know the history. But the point is that neither country improvised this recent summit.
Here's a fun fact: did you know that the US State Department has a branch just for this sort of thing? It's called the Office of the Chief of Protocol. Here's what it has to say about foreign nations' flags:
Q: What is the order of display for the U.S. flag and a flag of a foreign nation?
A: The two flags should be on separate staffs. Both flags should be the same size and flown at the same height. The U.S. flag is flown in the place of honor, which is to the viewer's left.
So, you see, there's already an established procedure in place for this. I'd bet dollars to donuts that some junior-level worker bees from the US protocol office, and their North Korean counterparts, were feverishly flipping through some thick, hardbound manual to figure out how both nations' flags were displayed.
Do you really think that the same person who can't be bothered to read an intelligence briefing longer than a page seems like a person who gets that involved in the mundane minutiae of a diplomatic ceremony? Hell no. Relax, folks, he probably had very little to do with planning this ceremony; and he certainly didn't micromanage it down to the last detail. And despite his obvious affinity for authoritarians and strongmen, I can guarantee he didn't order the North Korean flag to be at the same level as the US flag.
But that's exactly what you would think he did, based on the level of outrage from some sources. I was expecting some vitriol, and I found plenty of it on Twitter. The anti-Trump crowd was losing its shit. Now, I can certainly understand where they're coming from. If you didn't know about the flag protocol, it appeared that the United States was treating Kim Jong Un as an equal. That's certainly not a good look, given how much blood he has on his hands. But a lot of people should have known better. Maybe not about the specific regulation concerning flags, but at least the general awareness that these kinds of meetings are very traditional and ritualistic and based on established precedent?
Hell, I figured that out because I served in the military, where there's a collection of regulations for damn near every formal event: parades, promotion boards, change of command ceremonies, and so on. The State Department isn't the military, of course, but diplomatic duties involve a fair amount of ceremonies. Therefore, it's not hard to guess that State has regulations for all of those ceremonies, just as the military does.
The people who were coming down on Trump for the flag non-issue should have realized this, or at least been aware of the possibility. There are countless valid reasons to hammer on Trump, but if it becomes an instinctive thing to the point someone lets their loathing override their logic, the anti-Trump crowd is devolving into a tribal mob. I saw what that's like for about eight years, as Hannity, Limbaugh, and a handful of other hacks made it their goal to whip their viewers/listeners into a frothing fury over every little thing. (Hey, remember the "latte salute" incident?) And guess what? It was pretty successful. If the anti-Trump crowd is going to engage in the same kind of knee-jerk resentment, they've become the mirror image of the Hannity/Limbaugh crowd. That doesn't help put the country back on the right path.
I'm curious what they expected, though. Hypothetically, if North Korea ever gives up its nukes and rejoins the global community, there's going to have to be several ceremonies like the one this weekend. International politics often means associating with unsavory people, even the Scum of the Earth. It's not like every nation on earth is governed by perfect saints. On top of that, what would arranging the ceremony to treat Kim as an inferior accomplish? It makes the US look kind of like a bully, and makes North Korea resentful. History buffs know that humiliating a country like that can sometimes backfire spectacularly.
On the other hand, the people who one might expect to get worked up over the flag display have been largely silent. Curious (not really, I'm being rhetorical), considering how worked up those people have gotten over similar supposedly disrespectful behavior toward the American flag. I suspect that if you could draw a Venn diagram of the people who are shrugging and saying "meh" over this particular flag issue and of people who fly into a rage over NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem, it would be a near-perfect circle. I guess those people forgot to get outraged this time, because they were too busy fawning over their political savior.
Both sides of this brouhaha are letting their tribal instincts override their common sense. That's hardly a surprise, given how polarized things have gotten. But this is such a ridiculous thing to get fired up over, especially when there's an unexciting, simple explanation. (There are a lot of parties who have a stake in seeing the population get worked up over a relatively inconsequential issue, though, and I might tackle that topic in the future.) Tribalism is a helluva drug, though. It shuts off your critical thinking abilities and turns people into hypocrites.
ADDENDUM: In a postscript to the flag non-issue, President Trump was captured on tape saluting a high-ranking North Korean general. Now, there is a school of thought that a President shouldn't be saluting AT ALL, in accordance with not blurring the line between the military and its civilian leadership - retired Navy Chief Warrant Officer Jim Wright wrote a great Twitter thread about it, here. I personally think the Commander in Chief can render a salute without sliding into one of those pseudo-military strongmen that exist around the world, but I do see the logic in what Wright is saying. However, even if military customs and courtesies permitted the Commander in Chief to render salutes, AR 600-25 states that service members only renders salutes to military officers of friendly foreign nations The US and North Korea are technically still in a state of war, so North Korea is not a friendly nation by any stretch.
It's perfectly natural to wonder if the salute was yet another manifestation of Trump's affinity for authoritarian regimes, because there have been so, so many. But there's a saying that goes, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." I think it applies here. I'm going to chalk this up to stupidity, even though accidentally saluting an officer in a hostile nation's military seems like a pretty damn big brain fart. I'm not going to pin this on some sinister authoritarian explanation, but I'm not letting Trump's dumb ass off the hook either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)