Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Trump Era Page 9 of 13

The Press Is Trump’s Enemy, Not the Left’s Friend

By

On February 20, 2017

Comments

The enemy of my my enemy is not my friend. It often isn’t even my ally, but just someone with whom I have something in common.

Roosevelt on the Press from F.D.R. and the Press

FDR wasn’t that left wing, yet the press savaged him relentlessly. Corbyn is relentlessly savaged and lied about by the British press, and his political beliefs are basically 60s liberal with a side of anti-nuke.

The media works for its owners. As of 2000, 80 percent of US media was owned by six companies, and that percentage is higher now. The media serves the interests of the people who own it and anyone else’s only incidentally and insofar as those interests don’t contradict the owners. Furthermore, and at this point, almost all journalists and editors in the US media are Ivy League grinders.

Such people are deeply, personally, offended by the idea that someone like Trump, who just does not know how to act and who is rich despite being everything that parses as incompetent and gross to them, is President. Trump is not part of the club; despite being rich, he never has been. His father was rich, he was rich, but he comes across as nouveau riche, a parvenu, without taste or class. And his followers, in whose company he revels, are culturally beyond the pale to virtually anyone who was conditioned in an Ivy League school, and who jumped through all the hoops to get into an Ivy League school (a process which requires the unfortunate subject to be a grind and a brownnoser from elementary school all the way through high school).

Just as the intelligence community’s opposition to Trump does not make them good guys, the press’s opposition to Trump does not make them good guys. For all the screams about “fake news,” the worst purveyors of false news in the past 20 years were the mainstream media who sold the Iraq war for George Bush; with the most prestigious newspaper in America, the New York Times, making the flagship effort.

As a result, by the time Iraq was invaded, 72 percent of Americans thought that Iraq had been involved in 9/11 and a majority thought they had WMD and were a threat to America.

Now that’s fake news.

The media has been relentless in mocking any real left wing candidates as well. Kucinich, who ran for president multiple times, was treated as a joke. Oddly, he had been a successful mayor–he was both a successful legislator and a successful executive, but somehow he wasn’t credible.

For anyone who wants a better, more egalitarian world, with greater welfare for all and true respect for democracy, the best case scenario of the Trump/media fight is for them to destroy each other, and the media to be even further discredited, so that it can be broken back up into thousands of pieces. Even in that state, the majority of media outlets will be the enemy of all decent, kind individuals. However, that way they will be less powerful, and there will be room for a larger minority to advocate for something other than oligarchy and empire and all the evils that flow from both.

Remember, it is a rare person or institution that doesn’t serve the interests of whoever controls it, and if you cut a person’s paycheck, you are paying for control over that person. That is literally what the check is for, and if the person doesn’t act in the interests of their owner, they get fired.

The media is not your friend. They are the bought and paid for workers for oligarchy. That is their job. On the side, where the oligarchs don’t care much, they may do some good, but if “good” and “pushing the interests of their owners” conflict, they will always side with pushing the interests of their owners.

Trump cut the TPP. Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Trump wants huge tariffs on various countries. He wants to kick out undocumented immigrants, who work for bad wages in shitty jobs for people who don’t want to pay enough for people who aren’t scared of ICE to do the job.

There are oligarchs who support Trump’s plan, to be sure (see Fox, various others), but there are plenty who don’t.

That doesn’t make Trump’s plans good, nor by itself does it make them bad. It just means that giants are fighting above our heads. To them, we are ants, and ifm while they fight each other, they happen to step on some ants, that isn’t important to them.

Trump: Not your friend. Media: Not your friend. Intelligence agencies: Not your friends. This is true even if part of their current interests happens to coincide with yours.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Fools Russians Where Angels Fear to Tread

By

On February 18, 2017

Comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD5phTXGN_0

(NB: post by Mandos.)

Recent events suggest that, whatever they may have originally thought, the Trump administration is in the process of being pulled back into the overall historical attractor of US policy regarding Russia. The Russian establishment had made no secret of its preference for Trump and its belief that Trump was a person with which they could deal on a more even footing, a politician in a mold they understood, etc.

I’m not here to argue whether or not Trump (or Flynn) is some kind of Russian plant, an issue that seems to be occupying many others.  I gather that conclusive evidence on this matter has yet to be produced and that it so far lies in the realm of (negative) wishful thinking.  However, Russian policy-makers are already voicing disappointment that Russia-favorable entities in the Trump administration are increasingly weakened. The US state, particularly its intelligence community, are deeply set up for conflict with Russia, for better or for worse, and it turns out that the White House is only part of a large infrastructure, and any fantasies of an election resulting in a vast purge and house-cleaning were just that: fantasies. The intelligence community still believes to its core in the necessity of containing Russia.

However, one thing that is different now is the position of Western social liberals. Unfortunately, Russia had decided to back in spirit, if not always materially, movements that are identified with various strains of nationalist conservatism that are hostile to the goals and beliefs of social liberals. This is not only in the USA, but especially so in Europe, with the on-going rise of the Le Pens, the Wilders, and other groups in the world. Once upon a time, social liberal groups were principally parochial movements which were relatively indifferent on foreign policy questions regarding Russia, and to a very large extent also overlapped with anti-war movements — and so were once at odds with the intelligence community.

However, the apparent desire of Russia to return to a world of ordinary nation-state politics, and therefore its willing appearance (at minimum) of siding with conservative nationalist movements, have led to many social liberals now viewing Russia as mortal threat to their projects, and therefore, having a plausible motive to try to subvert political movements like that of Trumpism to their aims.  In this situation, social liberals (or “identity politics” movements, or whatever you want to call them) will quite rationally stake out a position that the devil you know (American intelligence forces) are better than the devil you don’t (Vladimir Putin). This is not helped by the appearance of things like Russia loosening its laws on domestic violence.

While social liberals have not lately been winning elections on their platforms (most notably, in the USA due to the Electoral College structure), it would be a mistake to assume that these groups have no power whatsoever. In fact, they have broad and deep bases of popular support (merely electorally inefficient), and those bases are being pushed into the arms of forces hostile to Russian interests. The combination of Cold War-style intelligence community conservatism with popular social liberalism is one that is likely to lead to an even more hostile neo-Cold War posture on the part of the Western establishment in the medium-term, unless in the short term Trumpism can generate the political competence required to coerce the establishment in the other direction.

For its part, Russia has been attempting to play, in the “further abroad”, a soft power role given that its other options are not effective. It is attempting to play the part of a rival global hegemon without actually being a hegemon. It does not currently have the cultural or technological reach to do so.  While it operates a technologically advanced, developed economy, it is still highly dependent on natural resource development and export. That means that the risks accruing from a strategy of using cultural divisions in the currently hegemonic Western social order are high: should social liberals gain the upper hand due to the inability of nationalist populism to operate the levers of state effectively, they will be confirmed in a resolve for further containment and suppression of a Russia that took sides against them.

The Deep State vs. Trump

By

On February 15, 2017

Comments

So, Flynn is gone. This was foolish on Trump’s part, because the odds of a Logan Act prosecution were zero.  Telling Russians to chill could easily be argued to be a good thing: If they hadn’t, it would have meant the Russians would have inflicted their own sanctions on the US, which, presumably, Americans wouldn’t want.

Not that I care if Flynn is gone. The man was an insane warmonger on the subject of Iran.

Meanwhile, there are constant leaks, always un-named and virtually never with any actual evidence.

Trump pissed off both the intelligence community and the foreign affairs community, and they want him taken out.

There were two stories used to delegitimize Trump during the election: He’s a Fascist (Hitler reborn, he’ll put you all in camps and exterminate you), and He’s a Russian Pawn.

Both are being run heavily now. The idea is to have a constant stream of scandals until he’s so damaged that he can be impeached by Republicans and replaced with Pence. (And if Pence goes down, you get Paul Ryan, who will be worse than Trump on many issues. There is no Nice Daddy to be gotten by impeaching Trump, children. They’re all bad people.)

The intelligence services are anti-Trump. The police are pro-Trump and where the military stands is uncertain.

The power circle here is as follows: Police > Intelligence > Military > Police. When there’s a confrontation, that’s who tends to win. Intelligence tends to beat the military, the military the police, the police the intelligence services. (That’s assuming unity. When you have a coup like the one in Turkey, where the military is not unified, the police can beat them.)

The question here is the loyalty of the FBI, which is the primary investigative arm of the police forces. If loyal, Trump should use them hard, to find who the leakers are. These ‘unnamed sources” have to contact journalists, and thanks to Obama, it is legal to wiretap journalists to find out who leakers are.

Once they are found, Trump should not just make examples of them, he should use them as a reason to break at least one agency (probably the CIA, far weaker than the NSA), with the understanding that there is enough material to break others if they continue.

I do not say “should” in the sense that I hope Trump does; I am agnostic. Unlike many left-wingers, I do not think that just because bad actors oppose Trump (a bad actor), they are now my friends. I’m a left-winger: No intelligence agency is my friend.

I am, however, genuinely concerned by the anti-Russia hysteria being whipped up. It is shameful and could easily lead to real, hot war with a nation which is much weaker than the US and its allies, except in nuclear terms. A nation whom has also noted that it will use nukes in case of a war.

Pushing Russia up against a wall is in almost no one’s interest and is profoundly dangerous.

I am dismayed that so many on the left are willing to collude in this anti-Russian hysteria, but I suppose I shouldn’t be, nothing more is to be expected.

The game will continue, and, yes, if Trump goes down, it will be because of a concerted campaign by the intelligence community. However much you may hate Trump, if you think that’s a good thing, you are delusional.

Note that I have no position on what happened or didn’t happen. I don’t know. I want proof. After Iraq, I don’t take “the intelligence community’s word” for anything. Only a fool would.

(Also, this:

)

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump and the Resistance

By

On February 10, 2017

Comments

So, the Resistance are doing something effective, and important: They are showing up to town halls and holding their congress members feet to the fire. This is what the Tea Party did, and it works. Combined with aggressive campaigning for down-ticket offices: state, municipal, school-board, and so on, this is where true power comes from.

Obama’s reign left the Democratic party a shambling ruins, with hardly any states under their control. The weakness at the federal level is only a shadow of the weakness at lower levels, so much so that the Republicans are within spitting distance of controlling enough States to get through constitutional amendments. (If they do, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. If you’re smart, get the fuck out of the country.)

Liberals tend to think that Trump’s on the run. Sure, there’s been setbacks, but it’s worth remembering that the polls are, well, probably wrong, as they were running up to the election. Besides, general approval is irrelevant, even if the polling is correct. Trump is never going to win California, or New York, or Massachussets, and if those states oppose him en-masse it means little.

Traditional phone polls that use live interviewers — including some of the most trusted polls in politics and media — report limited support for Trump and the controversial executive orders he’s signed. But automated phone and Internet-based surveys tell a different story. Once the element of anonymity is added, the president’s approval ratings suddenly look a lot better.

…

In referring to an automated poll that put the president’s popularity in the black, Spicer actually understated Trump’s level of support. According to Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey (released Friday), 54 percent of likely voters approved of the president’s job performance.

Some people are embarrassed to support Trump, but they do nonetheless, and his hard core support him very much. Further, his support among likely voters is his higher than his support among the general population.

The Resistance also has another problem: To win, Trump has to fail. This is bad in the sense that what Trump really needs to do to win is to deliver a decent economy to his core. Attacks on Kushner and Ivanka, for example, if those attacks succeed in reducing their influence, would actually make Americans worse off, because these are the sanest and kindest people who have significant influence over Trump. Likewise, while Bannon is a piece of work, the people who would replace him are an incoherent mess; evil without the silver lining of actually wanting a good economy for the working and middle class.

And if you get rid of Trump, you get Pence. He’ll make a lot less crazy headlines, but he’s a theocrat’s theocrat and an oligarch’s tool. He will be as bad as Trump in most ways and worse in others (for example, on gay rights).

Indiscriminate attacks on Trump’s advisers may make Trump fail (he’s vastly reliant on advice and guidance when it comes to policy), but they also risk railroading his and Pence’s presidencies into including all the bad and none of the good.

All this said, and at the end of the day, Trump’s fate is in his hands. If he can goose the economy, and replace Obamacare with something at least as good, and if he doesn’t allow Republicans to gut Social Security/Medicare, he’ll stay president and probably win re-election. If he doesn’t, he’s toast; either impeached or loses re-election.

But, for now, don’t believe all the numbers you’re being fed. Polling works badly with Trump; what matters is likely voters, and what really matters to them is if he delivers.

But the best form of resistance is the “In Your Face” kind: make the lives of Republicans and any Democrats who support him, personally miserable. If they are Democrats? Make it clear that you will primary them if they cooperate with Trump.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

The War with the Fed Begins

By

On February 3, 2017

Comments

As I predicted, the Fed / Trump war has begun (Pdf). (Letter from House Rep. McHenry)

I am writing regarding the Federal Reserve’s continued participation in internal forums on financial regulation. Despite the clear Message delivered by President Donal Trump in prioritizing America’s interests in international negotiations, it appears the Federal Reserve continues negotiating international regulatory standards for financial institutions among global bureaucrats in foreign lands without transparency, accountability or the authority to do so.

This is unacceptable.

…

The secretive structures of these international forums must also be reevaluated. Agreements like the Basel III Accords were negotiated and agreed to by the Federal Reserve with little notice to the American public, and were the result of an opaque decision-making process.

I have exactly zero sympathy for the Federal Reserve. They have spent 40 years sandbagging US wages and pretending that high unemployment was full employment; deliberately fueling the stock market when it would have fallen otherwise, and when elected parts of the government tried to improve the wages of ordinary people beyond what the Fed thought was acceptable, the Fed would undo what they had done.

Trump and Republicans are not the ones I’d want taking on the Fed, but the Democrats refused to do it. Nor do I agree with McHenry on what the Fed has done wrong (higher capital requirements are good), but I do agree that the Fed has repeatedly overstepped itself and needs to be brought to heel. It’s a pity it will be done by these people for these reasons, but c’est la vie.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump’s Muslim Ban

By

On January 28, 2017

Comments

This is what Trump said he’d do, and he’s doing it. While I appreciate politicians keeping their promises, this is something I think is wrong on its merits. I’ll second this suggestion, with respect to the green card holders being denied entry:

I note that if the intention was to punish sponsors of terrorism, the ban should have hit Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which is where the money and the actual 9/11 terrorists mostly came from.

I have long thought that Canada, and many other countries, could easily benefit from American xenophobia. People are an asset, and it is only in sickly nations, economies, and cultures where they are viewed as a liability.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Trump Has Not Yet Lied About What Matters Most

By

On January 26, 2017

Comments

In the brief time that Trump has been president, he has ended the Trans Pacific Partnership, moved forward on his border wall, signed various anti-abortion edicts, given notice he will be renegotiating NAFTA, and announced he’ll be banning visitors from six Muslim countries (though he hasn’t signed the bill yet).

In other words, Trump is moving forward on his signature issues. If you watched his rallies, or you read the transcripts, you know what issues he kept banging on about, and that those who voted for him have every reason to believe he cared about those issues.

He is, so far, doing those things. This matters one hundred times more than when he tweets delusional bullshit about inauguration numbers. The people who voted for him will forgive those lies if he keeps his promises to them. And, frankly, that’s how it should be.

Remember that Obama said he’d renegotiate NAFTA. He never did, and we all know he never intended to.

Trump was elected because he didn’t parse like people like Clinton or Obama or Romney: He didn’t parse like a normal politician, who will lie about NAFTA. He parses differently, and therefore as maybe someone who wasn’t lying.

Now, Trump made other promises that matter more than these ones. For instance, not cutting Medicare and Social Security. Replacing Obamacare with something better.

And he made an ur-promise, which amounted to making people who voted for him better off, especially rust-belters.  That’s going to be a hard promise for him to fulfill, because it’s in conflict with certain other things he wants to do (and on which he campaigned), like tax cuts and gutting unions. Those conflicts will mitigate hard against his promise to those who voted for him.

So how truthful Trump proves to be, in the ways that matter, is yet to be seen.

That said, he is keeping the promises that matter. Yes, he lies (or is perhaps delusional) about all sorts of things–from widespread voter fraud (non-existent) to inauguration attendance numbers, but I will straight up state that those lies matter LESS than the usual political lies of intent–of making core promises, and then failing to keep them.

One can cavil that Trump has said many things, but anyone who watched his rallies knows what his real core promises were. Making good on those promises is what he will and should be judged on most.

This is not to say there is no damage from his other lies: I disapprove strongly of lying or living in fantasy-land.  Climate change is real, the inauguration numbers are what they are, there is no voter fraud of any significance, and so on. Lying about these things is bad.

But lying about intent; lying to those who vote for you about what you will do, is, in my opinion, worse. So far Trump has been keeping faith in that respect.

We’ll see if he continues to keep the faith (to do so he will have to fight Congressional Republicans), but do understand that he has–so far. Understand, more, that the repeated lies of normal politicians about what they would do, then failing to deliver, is what made Trump possible, that made people so desperate they would take a flier on someone like Trump. (It’s also what made Brexit possible.)

People were sold lies about how free trade, and austerity, and so on would make them better off, for two generations. Specific promises like that of Obama’s regarding NAFTA were repeatedly broken–and, indeed, were never intended to be kept.

And now we reap what has been sowed.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The CIA vs. Trump

By

On January 24, 2017

Comments

Or, perhaps I should say, the intelligence community vs. Trump.

Let us be clear, the fact that the left is against Trump and that the intelligence community is against Trump should not mean, to anyone with sense, that the CIA, NSA, or any other alphabet soup agency is good, or noble, or our friend.

It just means we have the same enemy.

In World War II, the USSR and the US had the same enemy. After WWII, they almost immediately turned on each other.

If the CIA were to take out Trump, they would immediately go back to attacking left-wingers, as they have for their entire history.

From the POV of the left-wing, the best outcome of the intelligence community/Trump war would be mutual destruction.

And afterwards, salt the goddamn earth. The CIA and NSA are not the friend of any left-wing worth having: They are innately anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-human rights. Secret agencies are anathema to any open government. At an existential level, intelligence agencies are at best a double edged sword, and by their nature, they always wind up serving the interests of the few, against the interests of the people.

The CIA and NSA are a greater long term threat than Trump. Indeed, it is the existence of a turn-key police/surveillance state like them which makes Trump so potentially dangerous. It is a good thing they don’t like him, or he them. But that is not because they believe in “liberty” or “democracy” or “the constitution.” For these agencies to pretend it is so, in the face of their long term actions to subvert all three, is laughable. (The NSA was found out to be spying on its own Congressional oversight committee. It is a rogue organization already.)

By all means, cheer the intelligence community on. But if you’re wise, you’ll be cheering Trump to destroy them at the same time. And you won’t trust either, but especially not the intelligence community, who are likely to be around long after Trump is dead, whether he dies from a convenient sniper on a hill or not.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 9 of 13

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén