If you'd asked me last summer, I'd have said that it was
at least even money that Trump was a stalking horse for Clinton. Clearly
that gamble would not have paid out:
What, Mr. Green asked, would the party look like in five years? “Love the question,” Mr. Trump replied. “Five, 10 years from now—different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years.”
My impression on reading this was that Mr. Trump is seeing it as a party of regular people, as the Democratic Party was when I was a child and the Republican Party when I was a young woman.
This is the first thing I’ve seen that suggests Mr. Trump is ideologically conscious of what he’s doing. It’s not just ego and orange hair, he suggests, it’s politically intentional.
THAT, is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteNot exactly newsflash material. The "ordinary people" thing is also called populism, which is utterly despised by Establishment types. That's why they usually link the term "populism" to "nativism" and "racism." See, THOSE are nasty terms and (clearly, my good man) all populists are by nature also nativist and racist.
ReplyDeleteFor good measure they often toss in the term "xenophobic" and sometimes even describe such peasants as "America Firsters." You know, people who think that the Armed Forces should spend less time building democracy in sandlots and jungles and more time (and money) building better weapons systems for defending the US.
Why else would he attract so many disaffected (D) voters?
I -like- building democracy in sandlots and jungles. Not that we've had a lot of success at it. But it's a noble calling.
ReplyDeleteA man has to die doing something.
mmmmphhhmmphh
ReplyDeleteCalling noble, yes. Noble goals, yes. Work of the US Armed Forces? No.
Plausibly, the Armed Forces would be more successful if they adopted a strategy of deterrence through severe punitive strikes. That strategy has been basically successful against state actors, and it might also work against non-state actors.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the benefit of a Foreign Internal Defense approach is currently harder to see than it ought to be. The Obama administration has made such a hash of it that it looks like a bad idea. But look back to the Philippines, circa 2007, when we had a robust FID strategy underway. Compare that with the insurgency in the Philippines today. Compare, for that matter, Iraq in 2007-9 with the Iraq of today.
I would submit that our FID approach often works, assuming that we have the political will to stick to it. The best argument against it, from my perspective, is that we don't seem to have: the election of Obama in 2008 proves that the American public may be too fickle for anything other than a short-term punitive strategy. If so, we have to accept reality and conform ourselves to it -- but I think the world will be a sadder and a worse place because of the cessation of American leadership in these poor regions.
The "FID-or-no-FID question is secondary.
ReplyDeleteThe first question is whether the subject country's culture is amenable to democracy. (Or some form thereof, such as a republic.)
I know that when given the chance, Iraqis voted and apparently voted for a pretty good gummint. So did the Japanese, 6 decades before. Now here's the payoff question: why did the Iraqis have a hard time holding fast, while the Germans and Japanese did not?
The best wars in American history were the ones Democrat leaders lied the public into. Since Bush II failed to do that... the public also failed to back it for 4 terms like they did President for Life Roosevelt.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is not a Republic and the democracy is now an oligarchy. The problem with Democrat Crusaders invading countries and remaking them into democracies is... well, when the Democrat Crusader is no longer even a Democracy, there's a problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd that problem has nothing to do with military or foreign policy, everything to do with domestic traitors.
Now here's the payoff question: why did the Iraqis have a hard time holding fast, while the Germans and Japanese did not?
ReplyDeleteBecause the Germans and the Japanese had a ethnically homogeneous nation state, while the Iraqis were divided among hostile and competing ethno-religious sects.
But also, because the Germans and Japanese had the benefit of 50 years of American soldiers sticking around to ensure the stability and peace. Iraq had two years of peace, and then we left them on their own. They hadn't had time to build real trust among those hostile groups. So, the minute he was free to do it, Maliki drove the Sunnis out of the government and began ruling as a tyrant.
If you want to be a man, act like a man. IF you want to be pious, act in a pious fashion. We become by doing, as do societies. Expectations often have a profound molding effect. Also, Exposure to a new idea through practice of it can facilitate adoption at a more organic level.
ReplyDeleteBut it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time.
Well, then. Will anyone (anyone....Bueller??) concede that the Brit-drawn "borders" of the Middle East are bull*&^?
ReplyDeleteNext question: MacArthur suggested that the US' 'ring of defense' include all of the Pacific, which to some extent included Japan and South Korea. So one might justify troop presence over there.
MacArthur may well have agreed that US presence in Europe was also necessary--there, to serve as an offset to the Russkies. But no one to my knowledge has come up with a reason for US troops perma-stationed in the Middle East, other than those who carry on about the "free flow of oil."
And of course, if the US were to extend its military presence to that area, how the Hell would be pay for it? (That's a question for which Trump has an answer: the US would NOT pay for it.)
Well, then. Will anyone (anyone....Bueller??) concede that the Brit-drawn "borders" of the Middle East are bull*&^?
ReplyDeleteYou should read Jimbo's book on the subject. It's called "Cut Down the Black Flag," and is a strategy to defeat ISIS. Along the way, it involves permitting those borders to be re-drawn to recognize the justice of Sunni and Kurdish concerns about Shia domination.
And of course, if the US were to extend its military presence to that area, how the Hell would be pay for it? (That's a question for which Trump has an answer: the US would NOT pay for it.)
As you say -- his strategy is "bomb the **** out of them and take their oil." I heard him say it.
Bush was so concerned that this not be seen as an 'imperialist war for oil' that we ended up with Chinese and other foreign companies getting all the good contracts. We might have had a long-term financial interest in taxing the revenue of American oil producers.
However, as I was trying to warn many years ago, Iraq is different from Afghanistan. You can make a case for Iraq. It's hard to see any viable plan for integrating Afghanistan into the global economy. "Ought implies can," as Kant is sometimes redacted. If we can't bring stability to Afghanistan, and we can't if there's no economic strategy available, then we have no duty to try. Indeed, it's usually considered immoral to fight a war that has no hope of victory under Just War theory.