Donald Trump just kicked a hornet's nest in the Middle East.
A few days ago, the United States, via a drone strike, assassinated the head of the Iranian military's Quds Force. To understand the significance of this, imagine if a hostile foreign nation assassinated a high-ranking US general or admiral. Not only that, but one who was deeply admired and respected by the public. The Iranian government is predictably pissed off about this, and is sure to respond. How exactly it will do that is unknown, but Iran has a lot of possibilities, ranging from a cyber attack to disrupting the global oil supply by choking off the Strait of Hormuz to terrorist attacks against US overseas installations. But there's sure to be some form of retaliation, and even a restrained Iranian response could inflict significant damage. Perhaps even a war.
And this was all set in motion by a man with no long-term strategy, no contingency plans for what might happen next, no national security staff in place to handle the crisis, and no interest or understanding of the world around him.
This is why a president doesn't make seat-of-the-pants decisions. A good president, anyway. The job of leading the nation is unimaginably complex, and in reality a president has very little power. There's very little room to maneuver on just about any issue without nudging something else off in a direction you don't want it to go. Sure, a lot of those concerns turn out to be overblown - many of the worst-case "what ifs" the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations had about America supporting France/getting directly involved in Vietnam ended up not coming to pass, and the chances of them occurring were far less likely than any of those presidents believed them to be. But presidents don't have a crystal ball, though, so it's important to carefully consider the consequences of any given decision.
(For example: Saudi Arabia. We all know eleven of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from that country, and there's good reason to believe that the Saudi Royal Family had advance knowledge of the plot. Maybe they even provided logistical support. So if anybody deserves an American ass-kicking, it's probably them. But what happens next? Say the US finally does target Saudi Arabia. Really bombs the shit out of it, to the point that we even wipe out the rats and cockroaches. Where does that leave our country? America still depends a lot on Saudi oil, despite efforts over the past few years to develop alternatives. That oil supply dries up if we attack them, which would harm our economy and our day-to-day lives in a big way. And that's why the US hasn't attacked Saudi Arabia in retaliation for 9/11.)
Of course, maybe nothing bad will happen. Maybe cooler heads will somehow prevail, and aside from a little chest-thumping rhetoric from both sides, things will revert to the status quo. Maybe. I don't have a crystal ball either.
Regardless, Trump's impulsive decision-making process isn't reassuring. At all. He's easily provoked and is more concerned about what kinds of headlines his policies and actions generate than the effects of those policies and decisions.
Not to mention the optics of trying to be a strong, decisive leader is a good way to distract from his impeachment.
And that's why you don't vote for a narcissistic, stubborn, willfully ignorant man-child to serve as president.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Saturday, August 3, 2019
When Feudal Fealty Meets Democracy
Quick question. Who remembers who Eric Shinseki was?
(. . .pause. . .)
Anyone?
(. . .longer pause. . .)
Really? Nobody? *sigh*
Okay, quick recap. Shinseki was an Army general who served from the mid-1960s until 2003. He had a fairly distinguished career - three Bronze Stars, a pair of Purple Hearts, a handful of combat tours, along with the prerequisites needed to attain the rank of four-star General - but I'm bringing him up because of something that happened at the tail end of his career.
See, Shinseki's final assignment before he retired was Chief of Staff of the Army. For those not familiar with the military's organizational structure, that made him the Army's representative on the Joint Chiefs - which means Shinseki had a fair amount of interaction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. And for the back half of Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff, those three individuals were Richard Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W Bush.
Shinseki and Rumsfeld had a disagreement over a little event known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the number of troops that should have comprised the initial invasion force. Rumsfeld thought it should have been between 100K - 150K troops, while Shinseki believed the mission would require several hundred thousand troops. History eventually vindicated Shinseki, but contradicting Rumsfeld (before Congress, no less) ended up putting him on Rumsfeld's bad side: from then onward, Shinseki was persona non grata with Rumsfeld and the cabal within the Bush Administration who were eager to invade Iraq. Besides making Shinseki a "lame duck," Rumsfeld's very public rebuke had the effect of cowing other senior officers who might have disagreed with one of Rumsfeld's policies, or have given him advice he didn't want to hear.
Okay, you all still with me? You in the back: wake up!
Questions? Oh, you want to know why I'm bringing all this up. Right, I was just getting to that.
I brought that incident up for two reasons. First, to illustrate the consequences of politicizing the military. By undercutting Shinseki, Rumsfeld made it more likely that people would give him advice he wanted to hear, rather than what they believed would work. Look at what happened as a result: the U.S. invaded Iraq with far fewer troops than necessary. Combined with a handful of other bad decisions, such as bypassing weapons caches and ignoring widespread looting, this meant that the United States lost control of the situation very early on. Had Rumsfeld gone with Shinseki's recommended troop levels, the U.S. could have had enough personnel to prevent many foreign insurgents from sneaking across the border or maintain civil order. Now, it's not certain that the additional troops Shinseki recommended would have been enough to contain Iraq, but those troops would have made success more likely. Yet Rumsfeld rejected Shinseki's advice, and that decision came back to haunt the military throughout OIF. Thousands of people died as a result.
The second reason I brought this up was to tie it to a recent event that probably hasn't gotten as much attention as it deserved. In the aftermath of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's court martial for murdering a civilian (quick recap of those events here), President Trump announced on Twitter that he would be instructing the Secretary of the Navy to rescind Navy Achievement Medals for two Navy JAG officers who prosecuted Gallagher's case.
(Quick tangent: before I get to my main point, I want to detour briefly for reasons that will become obvious very quickly. It looked pretty clear to me that Gallagher used excessive force against an unarmed noncombatant - if I were a juror, I would've voted to convict him - but here's the important part: I think the rumors of excessive force swirling around the case were what caught Trump's attention. I'm speculating, but based on Trump's past behavior, I think he heard about the case and thought, "That's how we need to start treating enemy combatants. None of this PC, Geneva Conventions bullshit. Brutalize them, kill them, torture them - they're subhuman anyway!")
[Reminder: This is what I think Trump believes. Definitely NOT what I believe. For an interesting piece on the thought process of people like Trump, click here.]
Okay, now to my main point. I hope you're all still with me.
It is wildly inappropriate for the president to involve himself with this case, especially by directing the Secretary of the Navy to rescind the prosecutors' awards, which were likely earned for something unrelated to the Gallagher case. Besides the very blatant micromanaging and flagrant pettiness, it sends a signal to the armed forces: "You get your awards thanks to my generosity. Make me unhappy, and I'll take them away."
What's that? You think I'm reading too much into this?
I don't think so. Consider the following:
Trump is under the impression that the armed forces belong to him, not the country or the office of the president. He's thought so for a long time, and while there's nothing wrong with thinking that, his recent actions subtly bring that thought closer to reality. It's another tiny crack he's made in the country's democratic foundation - namely, that the military belongs to the office, not to the person occupying it.
So to sum up: yes, I think Trump is gradually trying to make the military loyal to him and him alone. No, I don't think that's a fringe idea anymore.
Class dismissed.
(. . .pause. . .)
Anyone?
(. . .longer pause. . .)
Really? Nobody? *sigh*
Okay, quick recap. Shinseki was an Army general who served from the mid-1960s until 2003. He had a fairly distinguished career - three Bronze Stars, a pair of Purple Hearts, a handful of combat tours, along with the prerequisites needed to attain the rank of four-star General - but I'm bringing him up because of something that happened at the tail end of his career.
See, Shinseki's final assignment before he retired was Chief of Staff of the Army. For those not familiar with the military's organizational structure, that made him the Army's representative on the Joint Chiefs - which means Shinseki had a fair amount of interaction with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. And for the back half of Shinseki's term as Chief of Staff, those three individuals were Richard Myers, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W Bush.
Shinseki and Rumsfeld had a disagreement over a little event known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, the number of troops that should have comprised the initial invasion force. Rumsfeld thought it should have been between 100K - 150K troops, while Shinseki believed the mission would require several hundred thousand troops. History eventually vindicated Shinseki, but contradicting Rumsfeld (before Congress, no less) ended up putting him on Rumsfeld's bad side: from then onward, Shinseki was persona non grata with Rumsfeld and the cabal within the Bush Administration who were eager to invade Iraq. Besides making Shinseki a "lame duck," Rumsfeld's very public rebuke had the effect of cowing other senior officers who might have disagreed with one of Rumsfeld's policies, or have given him advice he didn't want to hear.
Okay, you all still with me? You in the back: wake up!
Questions? Oh, you want to know why I'm bringing all this up. Right, I was just getting to that.
I brought that incident up for two reasons. First, to illustrate the consequences of politicizing the military. By undercutting Shinseki, Rumsfeld made it more likely that people would give him advice he wanted to hear, rather than what they believed would work. Look at what happened as a result: the U.S. invaded Iraq with far fewer troops than necessary. Combined with a handful of other bad decisions, such as bypassing weapons caches and ignoring widespread looting, this meant that the United States lost control of the situation very early on. Had Rumsfeld gone with Shinseki's recommended troop levels, the U.S. could have had enough personnel to prevent many foreign insurgents from sneaking across the border or maintain civil order. Now, it's not certain that the additional troops Shinseki recommended would have been enough to contain Iraq, but those troops would have made success more likely. Yet Rumsfeld rejected Shinseki's advice, and that decision came back to haunt the military throughout OIF. Thousands of people died as a result.
The second reason I brought this up was to tie it to a recent event that probably hasn't gotten as much attention as it deserved. In the aftermath of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher's court martial for murdering a civilian (quick recap of those events here), President Trump announced on Twitter that he would be instructing the Secretary of the Navy to rescind Navy Achievement Medals for two Navy JAG officers who prosecuted Gallagher's case.
(Quick tangent: before I get to my main point, I want to detour briefly for reasons that will become obvious very quickly. It looked pretty clear to me that Gallagher used excessive force against an unarmed noncombatant - if I were a juror, I would've voted to convict him - but here's the important part: I think the rumors of excessive force swirling around the case were what caught Trump's attention. I'm speculating, but based on Trump's past behavior, I think he heard about the case and thought, "That's how we need to start treating enemy combatants. None of this PC, Geneva Conventions bullshit. Brutalize them, kill them, torture them - they're subhuman anyway!")
[Reminder: This is what I think Trump believes. Definitely NOT what I believe. For an interesting piece on the thought process of people like Trump, click here.]
Okay, now to my main point. I hope you're all still with me.
It is wildly inappropriate for the president to involve himself with this case, especially by directing the Secretary of the Navy to rescind the prosecutors' awards, which were likely earned for something unrelated to the Gallagher case. Besides the very blatant micromanaging and flagrant pettiness, it sends a signal to the armed forces: "You get your awards thanks to my generosity. Make me unhappy, and I'll take them away."
What's that? You think I'm reading too much into this?
I don't think so. Consider the following:
- Trump's meeting just a few months after his term began, in which the members of his cabinet took turns praising him
- He has a habit of firing any appointee who disagrees with him (Dan Coats) or makes him look bad (Ryan Zinke)
- He's expressed the belief that the heads of government agencies - most notably the Attorney General - exist to serve him, not the country or the agency they oversee
- The USS John McCain incident
Trump is under the impression that the armed forces belong to him, not the country or the office of the president. He's thought so for a long time, and while there's nothing wrong with thinking that, his recent actions subtly bring that thought closer to reality. It's another tiny crack he's made in the country's democratic foundation - namely, that the military belongs to the office, not to the person occupying it.
So to sum up: yes, I think Trump is gradually trying to make the military loyal to him and him alone. No, I don't think that's a fringe idea anymore.
Class dismissed.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Torching the Rulebook
I'm starting to think Donald Trump really could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and get away with it entirely. Not only would he not lose any voters, he'd escape any legal consequences as well.
Once I sat down and listed them all, the number of crimes and ethical transgressions he's survived unscathed is staggering. Professionally, he screwed over American farmers with his trade war, disregarded co-equal branches of government and the concept of separation of powers, tapped his unqualified, un-appointed kids to perform government duties they have no business doing, shared highly-classified intelligence with Russian government officials (Note: as president, he has declassification authority and can legally share whatever he wants with whoever he wants; that doesn't make it a good idea, though), sparked a crisis with Iran, praised multiple dictators and authoritarian-leaning leaders, ignored the Saudi government's murder of an American journalist, obstructed justice by interfering with the Mueller probe, sanctioned the abuse & mistreatment of children, and attacked the free press.
In his personal life - before and outside of the presidency - he's the subject of double-digit credible accusations of rape and sexual assault (including raping a teenager), accepted assistance from the Russian government during his campaign, raided the government coffers for his golf junkets, and has a track record of racism and sexism.
And those are just the scandals I could remember off the top of my head. So where are the people and institutions that are supposed to hold him accountable? Well. . .
On one side of the aisle, the GOP is largely enabling him (and has been from the first day of his presidency). Republicans in Congress are reinforcing Trump's lies by repeating them in the media, creating lies of their own, undermining and attempting to derail legitimate investigations into Trump's crimes, shielding Trump and his appointees from oversight and repercussions, blocking attempts to exercise Congressional oversight. And why? What does the GOP get out of this? The answer is conservative judges in lifetime appointments and continued support from its base.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are well-meaning but timid and ineffective. Based on my observation, they seem to be giving up too easy ("Oh shucks, the Trump administration ignored our subpoena. Well, we tried.") or refuse to play hardball. I get they impression they expect this whole mess to work itself out without their influence - that this will all blow over and things will return to normal. And maybe it will. I've never made a secret of how much I despise Trump, so maybe my resentment is clouding my judgment. Maybe I'm worrying for nothing about Trump refusing to leave the White House in 2021 or 2025.
Then again, he's checking off a lot of boxes on the "making yourself a king" list: showing disdain for the separation of powers, grooming his kids as a potential successor, hinting at a possible 3rd term or rejecting an election's outcome if it's unfavorable. (Yes, he might have been joking, but it's telling that he keeps going back to that theme and a lot of humor is spoken in jest.) In just two and a half years, he's made Americans more accepting of undemocratic practices. His base (somewhere around 35% of the country) supports whatever he does, and the rest are becoming numb to his antics. (Think I'm exaggerating? Less than two weeks ago, a woman came forward with a credible accusation that Trump raped her a few decades ago, and the story has already vanished from the headlines. Think about that: someone accused the president of a violent crime, and it's already been forgotten. I'm not the only one to notice this, by the way.)
So if the public has become inured to that, what else is it downplaying? Unfounded allegations of voter fraud? Baseless criticism of law enforcement? Nepotism? Defying the Constitution and putting himself above the rule of law? Because Trump has done ALL of those things. Now, do I think we're going to wake up the day after the 2020 elections to find MRAPs and M4-toting police officers on every street corner? No. For his many faults, Trump seems adverse to bloodshed. That's what makes me believe he doesn't plan to declare martial law or anything radical like that. But his conduct is paving the way for a more unscrupulous version of Trump down the road, someone politically savvier and less reserved about using force. Maybe that's when we DO see the MRAPs and the rifle-carrying cops show up.
What people tolerate, they get more of, and Trump has shown that Americans will tolerate quite a lot.
And here's another thing: whether you think Trump is an empty gasbag or an American Mussolini, his influence on government will take a long time to go away. He's reshaped the country's political norms, and not in a good way. He's made lying more acceptable, he's made bipartisan compromise less likely, and he's shattered future expectations of civility.
We've already seen what that looks like over the past two years - do we really want to see the "on steroids" version of that? I don't think any of us could call that a good thing. So if we want to avoid that fate, we need to fight back. Hard.
Even if that means breaking a few rules ourselves. Because the Democrats need to stop "playing nice." They need to stop believing (or pretending) the GOP is acting in good faith. They need to get a bit more ruthless themselves, inflicting a few metaphorical broken bones and shattered reputations if necessary. Steamroll over the GOP. If you wonder why I'm focusing on the Democrats instead of the Republicans, it's because the GOP's enabling of Trump has shown it's unfit to govern many times over. (Quick aside: I would not be bothered if the next Democratic president drew inspiration from Reconstruction, and instituted harsh measures like stripping GOP Senators of voting privileges, until such time that it becomes fit to govern again. Because, yes, the modern GOP is that bad.)
Because what we do now will affect what type of government we have over the next 20-30 years.
Once I sat down and listed them all, the number of crimes and ethical transgressions he's survived unscathed is staggering. Professionally, he screwed over American farmers with his trade war, disregarded co-equal branches of government and the concept of separation of powers, tapped his unqualified, un-appointed kids to perform government duties they have no business doing, shared highly-classified intelligence with Russian government officials (Note: as president, he has declassification authority and can legally share whatever he wants with whoever he wants; that doesn't make it a good idea, though), sparked a crisis with Iran, praised multiple dictators and authoritarian-leaning leaders, ignored the Saudi government's murder of an American journalist, obstructed justice by interfering with the Mueller probe, sanctioned the abuse & mistreatment of children, and attacked the free press.
In his personal life - before and outside of the presidency - he's the subject of double-digit credible accusations of rape and sexual assault (including raping a teenager), accepted assistance from the Russian government during his campaign, raided the government coffers for his golf junkets, and has a track record of racism and sexism.
And those are just the scandals I could remember off the top of my head. So where are the people and institutions that are supposed to hold him accountable? Well. . .
On one side of the aisle, the GOP is largely enabling him (and has been from the first day of his presidency). Republicans in Congress are reinforcing Trump's lies by repeating them in the media, creating lies of their own, undermining and attempting to derail legitimate investigations into Trump's crimes, shielding Trump and his appointees from oversight and repercussions, blocking attempts to exercise Congressional oversight. And why? What does the GOP get out of this? The answer is conservative judges in lifetime appointments and continued support from its base.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are well-meaning but timid and ineffective. Based on my observation, they seem to be giving up too easy ("Oh shucks, the Trump administration ignored our subpoena. Well, we tried.") or refuse to play hardball. I get they impression they expect this whole mess to work itself out without their influence - that this will all blow over and things will return to normal. And maybe it will. I've never made a secret of how much I despise Trump, so maybe my resentment is clouding my judgment. Maybe I'm worrying for nothing about Trump refusing to leave the White House in 2021 or 2025.
Then again, he's checking off a lot of boxes on the "making yourself a king" list: showing disdain for the separation of powers, grooming his kids as a potential successor, hinting at a possible 3rd term or rejecting an election's outcome if it's unfavorable. (Yes, he might have been joking, but it's telling that he keeps going back to that theme and a lot of humor is spoken in jest.) In just two and a half years, he's made Americans more accepting of undemocratic practices. His base (somewhere around 35% of the country) supports whatever he does, and the rest are becoming numb to his antics. (Think I'm exaggerating? Less than two weeks ago, a woman came forward with a credible accusation that Trump raped her a few decades ago, and the story has already vanished from the headlines. Think about that: someone accused the president of a violent crime, and it's already been forgotten. I'm not the only one to notice this, by the way.)
So if the public has become inured to that, what else is it downplaying? Unfounded allegations of voter fraud? Baseless criticism of law enforcement? Nepotism? Defying the Constitution and putting himself above the rule of law? Because Trump has done ALL of those things. Now, do I think we're going to wake up the day after the 2020 elections to find MRAPs and M4-toting police officers on every street corner? No. For his many faults, Trump seems adverse to bloodshed. That's what makes me believe he doesn't plan to declare martial law or anything radical like that. But his conduct is paving the way for a more unscrupulous version of Trump down the road, someone politically savvier and less reserved about using force. Maybe that's when we DO see the MRAPs and the rifle-carrying cops show up.
What people tolerate, they get more of, and Trump has shown that Americans will tolerate quite a lot.
And here's another thing: whether you think Trump is an empty gasbag or an American Mussolini, his influence on government will take a long time to go away. He's reshaped the country's political norms, and not in a good way. He's made lying more acceptable, he's made bipartisan compromise less likely, and he's shattered future expectations of civility.
We've already seen what that looks like over the past two years - do we really want to see the "on steroids" version of that? I don't think any of us could call that a good thing. So if we want to avoid that fate, we need to fight back. Hard.
Even if that means breaking a few rules ourselves. Because the Democrats need to stop "playing nice." They need to stop believing (or pretending) the GOP is acting in good faith. They need to get a bit more ruthless themselves, inflicting a few metaphorical broken bones and shattered reputations if necessary. Steamroll over the GOP. If you wonder why I'm focusing on the Democrats instead of the Republicans, it's because the GOP's enabling of Trump has shown it's unfit to govern many times over. (Quick aside: I would not be bothered if the next Democratic president drew inspiration from Reconstruction, and instituted harsh measures like stripping GOP Senators of voting privileges, until such time that it becomes fit to govern again. Because, yes, the modern GOP is that bad.)
Because what we do now will affect what type of government we have over the next 20-30 years.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Russian Roulette
Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click! Tick-tick-tick--click!
Imagine you're living in a major European city in the summer of 1914. Paris, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia - it doesn't really matter which one. How would you react to news about the Archduke's assassination? Would you immediately start preparing for the coming war, or would you keep going about your daily life as usual? It seems counter-intuitive now, based on how inevitable World War I looks in hindsight, but at the time, a lot of people weren't concerned about the assassination setting in motion the events it did - partially because there had already been a handful of crises already, and they ultimately ended civilly, without a larger war breaking out.
* In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed part of Bosnia, Russia then menaced Austria-Hungary, and Germany menaced Russia in response.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1912, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia teamed up to acquire territory from the Ottoman Empire.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1913, Serbia and Greece turned on their former ally Bulgaria, in a dispute over the spoils of their victory from the previous year.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* Then, in 1914. . .tick-tick-tick--BANG!
Treating the Archduke's assassination as an unimportant event seems more understandable now, doesn't it? That's the tricky thing about historically significant events: you usually don't know which ones will end up being minor tremors and which ones will blow up into unmanageable crises until later. Maybe much later. And even when times are uneventful and dull, there are always multiple parts of the system at risk of careening out of control. Think of it like driving an old, high-mileage car. It's been through a lot of wear-and-tear, so because of its advanced age, there are multiple potential points of failure. A belt at risk of snapping, a frayed wire, a leaky gasket. Every time you drive it somewhere, you're adding stress to an already strained system.
Nations are like that. There are countless moving pieces, and at any given time, one of them could break down with catastrophic consequences. A crop failure. A terrorist attack. A natural disaster. A financial collapse. There's a constant undercurrent of chaos flowing through a seemingly calm and orderly facade. So it's natural for people to ignore or downplay the potential for chaos constantly unfolding around them. The people who can't or won't exhaust themselves, mentally and emotionally. (They also irritate everyone around them with their constant "The end is nigh" pronouncements - or so I'm told.) There's a danger in that complacency, though. It leads people to assume that because they survived a past crisis, they will also survive the current one.
We're living in one of those uncertain moments right now. Right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise multiple areas throughout the world. Brazil just elected a far-right politician as president. In Germany, a far-right movement is gaining popularity, and Angela Merkel's retirement signals an uncertain future. There's also a far-right resurgence in other parts of Europe. And America, which has long held the title of "Leader of the Free World," is seeing its democratic institutions being eroded from within. Will this be a temporary uptick, or will it lead to a long-term erosion of democracy? Will the international order that has been responsible for over seventy years of relative peace endure, or will we call these "the inter-war years" someday? We can't know for sure, because we're in the middle of these events. But there's no doubt that the storm clouds are gathering.
Tick-tick-tick. . .
Imagine you're living in a major European city in the summer of 1914. Paris, Vienna, Belgrade, Sofia - it doesn't really matter which one. How would you react to news about the Archduke's assassination? Would you immediately start preparing for the coming war, or would you keep going about your daily life as usual? It seems counter-intuitive now, based on how inevitable World War I looks in hindsight, but at the time, a lot of people weren't concerned about the assassination setting in motion the events it did - partially because there had already been a handful of crises already, and they ultimately ended civilly, without a larger war breaking out.
* In 1908, Austria-Hungary annexed part of Bosnia, Russia then menaced Austria-Hungary, and Germany menaced Russia in response.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1912, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia teamed up to acquire territory from the Ottoman Empire.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* In 1913, Serbia and Greece turned on their former ally Bulgaria, in a dispute over the spoils of their victory from the previous year.
Tick-tick-tick--click!
* Then, in 1914. . .tick-tick-tick--BANG!
Treating the Archduke's assassination as an unimportant event seems more understandable now, doesn't it? That's the tricky thing about historically significant events: you usually don't know which ones will end up being minor tremors and which ones will blow up into unmanageable crises until later. Maybe much later. And even when times are uneventful and dull, there are always multiple parts of the system at risk of careening out of control. Think of it like driving an old, high-mileage car. It's been through a lot of wear-and-tear, so because of its advanced age, there are multiple potential points of failure. A belt at risk of snapping, a frayed wire, a leaky gasket. Every time you drive it somewhere, you're adding stress to an already strained system.
Nations are like that. There are countless moving pieces, and at any given time, one of them could break down with catastrophic consequences. A crop failure. A terrorist attack. A natural disaster. A financial collapse. There's a constant undercurrent of chaos flowing through a seemingly calm and orderly facade. So it's natural for people to ignore or downplay the potential for chaos constantly unfolding around them. The people who can't or won't exhaust themselves, mentally and emotionally. (They also irritate everyone around them with their constant "The end is nigh" pronouncements - or so I'm told.) There's a danger in that complacency, though. It leads people to assume that because they survived a past crisis, they will also survive the current one.
We're living in one of those uncertain moments right now. Right-wing authoritarianism is on the rise multiple areas throughout the world. Brazil just elected a far-right politician as president. In Germany, a far-right movement is gaining popularity, and Angela Merkel's retirement signals an uncertain future. There's also a far-right resurgence in other parts of Europe. And America, which has long held the title of "Leader of the Free World," is seeing its democratic institutions being eroded from within. Will this be a temporary uptick, or will it lead to a long-term erosion of democracy? Will the international order that has been responsible for over seventy years of relative peace endure, or will we call these "the inter-war years" someday? We can't know for sure, because we're in the middle of these events. But there's no doubt that the storm clouds are gathering.
Tick-tick-tick. . .
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Civility From Thee, But Not From Me
Civility.
There's been a lot of calls for more of it in political discourse lately, with very good reason. In the past several days, someone targeted about a dozen prominent political figures with homemade bombs. As far as political violence goes, that's a huge damn deal. Civility seems like a pretty important commodity right now, don't you think? Who would be against that?
Who, indeed? Well, as it turns out, it's some of the people being the loudest in calling for more civility.
Every political ideology has a certain percentage of adherents that see violence as a legitimate tool for achieving their goals or expressing their beliefs, whether it's pounding a metal rod in a tree due to be logged, blowing up an abortion clinic, shooting up a Congressional softball game, or sending homemade bombs through the mail. They fall all along the political spectrum, and no amount of civil discourse will temper their fanaticism because they don't possess a radical thought process.
Traditional political rhetoric reaches these people in a different way. Where a rational person hears a politican's call to action as a cue to volunteer, contact their elected officials, or some other form of political activism, these people interpret the message as a command to destroy property or harm people. That's an unintended consequence of political rhetoric, and there's not much that can be done about it.
However, one of America's two major political parties has been issuing increasingly incendiary rhetoric for months now. From subtle dog whistles like "globalist" and "placeholder" to obvious phrases like "left-wing mob" to ridiculous conspiracy theories. And it's having a measurable effect. Yet if the response to the homemade bombs is any indication, that party doesn't show any signs of changing its rhetoric. President Trump's response to a reporter's question about whether he planned to tone down his rhetoric in the wake of the attempted bombings was basically "LOL, nah." So was Sean Hannity's. Tucker Carlson spun a false equivalency fairy tale. Meanwhile, some right-wing pundits have been aggressively promoting a "false flag" narrative, that the Democrats are behind the homemade bombs.
To put it mildly, this is a disgrace.
Do we need more civility in our political discourse? Someone just tried to assassinate a dozen or so political figures with homemade bombs, so hell yes we do. But I'm sick of hearing any calls for civility coming from the GOP or anyone in the right-wing media. They've been fanning the flames of paranoia and hostility literally for years. With Birtherism. With Benghazi. With Clinton's emails. With Pizzagate. With Seth Rich and Vince Foster conspiracy theories. With discriminatory and needlessly cruel policies. All the while, they cast themselves as the victims and refused to take responsibility for their rhetoric or their actions. To them, "civility" is a unilateral cease-fire, where the other side shuts up and they get to say whatever they want.
I'll take Republican calls for civility seriously when Trump, his minions, and all of Fox News get their own houses in order. When they stop peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies, and stop spewing inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes their political opposition. Their hateful rhetoric is already responsible for one person's death, and there's a good chance we'll see more bloodshed if this continues. As long as they keep fanning the flames, I'll respond to their calls for "civility" with a polite but firm "Go fuck yourselves."
If they want civility, they can show a little first.
There's been a lot of calls for more of it in political discourse lately, with very good reason. In the past several days, someone targeted about a dozen prominent political figures with homemade bombs. As far as political violence goes, that's a huge damn deal. Civility seems like a pretty important commodity right now, don't you think? Who would be against that?
Who, indeed? Well, as it turns out, it's some of the people being the loudest in calling for more civility.
Every political ideology has a certain percentage of adherents that see violence as a legitimate tool for achieving their goals or expressing their beliefs, whether it's pounding a metal rod in a tree due to be logged, blowing up an abortion clinic, shooting up a Congressional softball game, or sending homemade bombs through the mail. They fall all along the political spectrum, and no amount of civil discourse will temper their fanaticism because they don't possess a radical thought process.
Traditional political rhetoric reaches these people in a different way. Where a rational person hears a politican's call to action as a cue to volunteer, contact their elected officials, or some other form of political activism, these people interpret the message as a command to destroy property or harm people. That's an unintended consequence of political rhetoric, and there's not much that can be done about it.
However, one of America's two major political parties has been issuing increasingly incendiary rhetoric for months now. From subtle dog whistles like "globalist" and "placeholder" to obvious phrases like "left-wing mob" to ridiculous conspiracy theories. And it's having a measurable effect. Yet if the response to the homemade bombs is any indication, that party doesn't show any signs of changing its rhetoric. President Trump's response to a reporter's question about whether he planned to tone down his rhetoric in the wake of the attempted bombings was basically "LOL, nah." So was Sean Hannity's. Tucker Carlson spun a false equivalency fairy tale. Meanwhile, some right-wing pundits have been aggressively promoting a "false flag" narrative, that the Democrats are behind the homemade bombs.
To put it mildly, this is a disgrace.
Do we need more civility in our political discourse? Someone just tried to assassinate a dozen or so political figures with homemade bombs, so hell yes we do. But I'm sick of hearing any calls for civility coming from the GOP or anyone in the right-wing media. They've been fanning the flames of paranoia and hostility literally for years. With Birtherism. With Benghazi. With Clinton's emails. With Pizzagate. With Seth Rich and Vince Foster conspiracy theories. With discriminatory and needlessly cruel policies. All the while, they cast themselves as the victims and refused to take responsibility for their rhetoric or their actions. To them, "civility" is a unilateral cease-fire, where the other side shuts up and they get to say whatever they want.
I'll take Republican calls for civility seriously when Trump, his minions, and all of Fox News get their own houses in order. When they stop peddling conspiracy theories and outright lies, and stop spewing inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes their political opposition. Their hateful rhetoric is already responsible for one person's death, and there's a good chance we'll see more bloodshed if this continues. As long as they keep fanning the flames, I'll respond to their calls for "civility" with a polite but firm "Go fuck yourselves."
If they want civility, they can show a little first.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The Blogger Who Cried "Wolf"
What if I'm wrong? That question has crossed my mind more than once. Suppose all my fears about Trump's authoritarianism turn out to be unfounded, and it turns out to be part of his shtick all this time - to "own the libs," or whatever. Man, won't I look foolish, what with all the squawking I've done about how he's a wanna-be autocrat, how he's a threat to democracy, and so on.
It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources. The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal. Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.
And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people. We still have a free press. We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media. We can still vote. (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)
So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded. If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic. If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.
But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens. I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare. Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions. It will take time and effort to repair them. And that's the best-case scenario. What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.
I guess we'll find out in a few years. In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.
It's not like this is unprecedented, after all. Nixon privately wished he could assassinate a nosy journalist, and Obama aggressively prosecuted whistle-blowers and their journalist sources. The US government has done business with undemocratic regimes in the past, on several occasions. Government crackdowns on protests in the 1960s were significantly more frequent and brutal. Yet the US hasn't slid into authoritarianism itself, despite having frequent brushes with other authoritarian nations, and even our own elected officials who possess anti-democratic leanings.
And honestly, how much has life changed for the average person since January 2017? Probably not much, for most people. We still have a free press. We don't have to worry about the FBI showing up at our door because we participated in a march or voiced our opinion on social media. We can still vote. (And yes, there are many cases of voter suppression, but - and I'm not trying to downplay it here - it's another thing that has been going on for years, if not decades.)
So maybe I'm overreacting, and the things I've been pointing out are just "politics as usual." Maybe 2021 arrives, and my worst fear about Trump not stepping down turns out to be unfounded. If that's the case, my credibility takes a big hit. Not only was I wrong in a big way, I panicked over nothing. I might have even made a handful of other people panic. If I do end up being wrong, I'll dial back how much I talk about politics and current events substantially. (I'll never shut up completely, though. You're all stuck with me.) I'll also take a hard look at my preconceived notions, to figure out how and why I was so wrong.
But the way I see it, we're not "fine" even if the worst-case scenario never happens. I compare it to a patient who refuses to make lifestyle changes after a major health scare. Even if Trump's actions turn out to be an act for whatever reason, they still had the effect of chipping away at the country's democratic institutions. It will take time and effort to repair them. And that's the best-case scenario. What if we don't get that best-case scenario? I'd rather overreact and be wrong, because prevention is easier than reversing the process.
I guess we'll find out in a few years. In the meantime, I'll keep squawking about it, loudly and often.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
The Emperor Has No Clothes - and We've All Known for a While
So . . . The Op-Ed.
The latest act in the Trump Administration's 3-ring circus took place a few days ago, when the New York Times published an op-ed by an alleged "senior official in the Trump administration" which basically confirmed what everyone already knows: Trump's presidency is a absolute fiasco and Trump himself is thoroughly unfit to govern. The op-ed lays out a laundry list of flaws, portraying the president as inconsistent, prone to fits of pique, impulsive, lacking any intellectual curiosity . . . things that were abundantly clear to anyone who was paying attention during the presidential campaign. So, none of Trump's character defects are really a shocking revelation.
Seriously, if they weren't obvious to you, you are a very poor judge of character.
What I found interesting, and maybe a tiny amount irksome, was that the op-ed writer claims to be one of many administration officials actively seeking to thwart Trump's most disastrous policy ideas. The op-ed doesn't mention any specific incidents, but Bob Woodward's book corroborates much of it while also providing specific details. Including (assuming the story is true) removing official papers from the president's desk to prevent him from signing them into policy.
For sure, every president butts heads with his cabinet members, advisors, or other senior officials. It would be naive to think otherwise. In a similar vein, there's often a disconnect between what the president wants and the career bureaucrats charged with making it happen. Maybe the intent gets lost in communication. (Remember that "telephone" game?) Maybe an agency's office in a rural area doesn't have the resources to adequately implement the directive the way the president envisioned. Maybe the president's idea is unworkable or runs into conflict with existing policies. The US government is a big, sprawling bureaucracy, and problems are bound to arise in the process of translating the president's general directives into specific legal or regulatory policy.
There's a difference between problems that typically arise in a presidential principal-agent relationship, and what's going on in the Trump administration. As much as I'd probably cheer if I knew just what ill-conceived policy ideas Trump's senior officials have derailed, I'm just a bit displeased about how they went about doing it.
And before you think I'm heading there - no. NO. This is NOT a coup. Here's a good explanation on why it isn't. Basically, it comes down to the fact that these officials still agree with a large portion of Trump's agenda, and want to keep him in power to see that agenda through. So let's nip that idea in the bud.
But just because it's not a coup doesn't make it okay, though. Neither does the fact that they're containing one of the worst presidents this country's ever had. These senior officials, even if they're doing what's right for the country, are still usurping part of the president's authority. Authority they were never meant to have. They may have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they never ran for election. Nobody voted them into office. Nobody knows what positions they have on certain issues - which might tell us what criteria they're using to grade proposed policies. So what metrics are they using to decide what policies are too awful to be made official? This administration is okay with breaking up families and keeping kids in cages, so it's clearly okay with a lot. If that policy was approved, how bad must the ones we're not seeing be?
And if Trump is so bad at being president, why don't these officials use the 25th Amendment to remove him from office? Because he's still politically useful. Here's the best take I've read about the anonymous op-ed so far. It makes quite a bit of sense, and I happen to agree with almost all of it.
I've said several times that Trump is the predictable outcome of roughly twenty-five years of the GOP's poisoning of American political discourse: science-deniers like Rick Scott and Jim Inhofe, bumbling idiots like Sarah Palin, Louie Gohmert, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michele Bachmann, and opportunistic partisan obstructionists like Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan. They all created this monster and now it's rampaging across the countryside. Only they can't put it down, because now they need it. Trump demolished fifteen other GOP primary candidates, some of them experienced and capable politicians. Which means that he is what the GOP base wanted. Trump redefined what's considered acceptable political conduct, he inspired others like Jim Jordan and Roy Moore to adopt his methods, and now the GOP needs to fall in line behind him if they want to keep winning elections.
Trump is unfit for office, we all knew that. And in the process of displaying his absolute unfitness, he's removed the last shred of doubt that the GOP is a morally bankrupt political party, equally unfit to govern, and also that the entire right-wing media establishment is a farcical propaganda-peddling machine. And since the party's leaders are unwilling or unable to develop some political courage and begin the process of removing Trump from office, the country will continue to watch a reckless, incompetent president crash from one fiasco to the next.
The 3-ring circus continues.
The latest act in the Trump Administration's 3-ring circus took place a few days ago, when the New York Times published an op-ed by an alleged "senior official in the Trump administration" which basically confirmed what everyone already knows: Trump's presidency is a absolute fiasco and Trump himself is thoroughly unfit to govern. The op-ed lays out a laundry list of flaws, portraying the president as inconsistent, prone to fits of pique, impulsive, lacking any intellectual curiosity . . . things that were abundantly clear to anyone who was paying attention during the presidential campaign. So, none of Trump's character defects are really a shocking revelation.
Seriously, if they weren't obvious to you, you are a very poor judge of character.
What I found interesting, and maybe a tiny amount irksome, was that the op-ed writer claims to be one of many administration officials actively seeking to thwart Trump's most disastrous policy ideas. The op-ed doesn't mention any specific incidents, but Bob Woodward's book corroborates much of it while also providing specific details. Including (assuming the story is true) removing official papers from the president's desk to prevent him from signing them into policy.
For sure, every president butts heads with his cabinet members, advisors, or other senior officials. It would be naive to think otherwise. In a similar vein, there's often a disconnect between what the president wants and the career bureaucrats charged with making it happen. Maybe the intent gets lost in communication. (Remember that "telephone" game?) Maybe an agency's office in a rural area doesn't have the resources to adequately implement the directive the way the president envisioned. Maybe the president's idea is unworkable or runs into conflict with existing policies. The US government is a big, sprawling bureaucracy, and problems are bound to arise in the process of translating the president's general directives into specific legal or regulatory policy.
There's a difference between problems that typically arise in a presidential principal-agent relationship, and what's going on in the Trump administration. As much as I'd probably cheer if I knew just what ill-conceived policy ideas Trump's senior officials have derailed, I'm just a bit displeased about how they went about doing it.
And before you think I'm heading there - no. NO. This is NOT a coup. Here's a good explanation on why it isn't. Basically, it comes down to the fact that these officials still agree with a large portion of Trump's agenda, and want to keep him in power to see that agenda through. So let's nip that idea in the bud.
But just because it's not a coup doesn't make it okay, though. Neither does the fact that they're containing one of the worst presidents this country's ever had. These senior officials, even if they're doing what's right for the country, are still usurping part of the president's authority. Authority they were never meant to have. They may have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they never ran for election. Nobody voted them into office. Nobody knows what positions they have on certain issues - which might tell us what criteria they're using to grade proposed policies. So what metrics are they using to decide what policies are too awful to be made official? This administration is okay with breaking up families and keeping kids in cages, so it's clearly okay with a lot. If that policy was approved, how bad must the ones we're not seeing be?
And if Trump is so bad at being president, why don't these officials use the 25th Amendment to remove him from office? Because he's still politically useful. Here's the best take I've read about the anonymous op-ed so far. It makes quite a bit of sense, and I happen to agree with almost all of it.
I've said several times that Trump is the predictable outcome of roughly twenty-five years of the GOP's poisoning of American political discourse: science-deniers like Rick Scott and Jim Inhofe, bumbling idiots like Sarah Palin, Louie Gohmert, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and Michele Bachmann, and opportunistic partisan obstructionists like Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan. They all created this monster and now it's rampaging across the countryside. Only they can't put it down, because now they need it. Trump demolished fifteen other GOP primary candidates, some of them experienced and capable politicians. Which means that he is what the GOP base wanted. Trump redefined what's considered acceptable political conduct, he inspired others like Jim Jordan and Roy Moore to adopt his methods, and now the GOP needs to fall in line behind him if they want to keep winning elections.
Trump is unfit for office, we all knew that. And in the process of displaying his absolute unfitness, he's removed the last shred of doubt that the GOP is a morally bankrupt political party, equally unfit to govern, and also that the entire right-wing media establishment is a farcical propaganda-peddling machine. And since the party's leaders are unwilling or unable to develop some political courage and begin the process of removing Trump from office, the country will continue to watch a reckless, incompetent president crash from one fiasco to the next.
The 3-ring circus continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)