Pragmatism versus Politics

Abstract:  President Trump has been in office for a year already.  Despite a growing economy and better labor numbers, the political elite have doubled down on their mission to oppose President Trump’s agenda for Making America Great Again.  Today’s segment on NBC’s Meet the Press provided more evidence.  Disturbed by some of the themes—the political capital of DACA and insinuations of a post-heroic period—it was not until I read a well-timed email from my uncle that I more deeply understood the political elite’s mind set.  They do not understand the difference between pragmatism and politics.  Politics requires glibness and visceral emotions; pragmatism requires reason unconstrained by “looking good” and “feel good” language.

Old Gadfly:  Gentleman, did you watch NBC’s Meet the Press this morning?

IM:  Yes. Amazingly, there was no mention of the Top Secret memo circulating within the halls of Congress about Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance System Act (FISA) system (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and other non-mainstream media sources).  Rather, Chuck Todd and four panel members pontificated on the government shutdown, mostly blaming President Trump for injecting chaos into this week’s deliberations focused mostly on the unconstitutional executive order by the previous President called the Deferred for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Todd later showed some polling to show why DACA is so critical to elections in districts along the southern border, Florida, and some districts elsewhere in the United States.  It was clear from a Democrat perspective that DACA is critical to their political fortunes by showing “empathy” for those brought illegally to the US by their parents.

 

Old Gadfly:  So, if I understand the implications of Todd’s analysis related to DACA and political fortunes, we can infer that the political elite see DACA as really a political opportunity tied to their political fortunes.  So much for the “Dreamers”—they are mere instruments in the action for political power.

 

AM:  Even Peggy Noonan ventured to claim that President Trump represents the “post heroic” period in American history.  Here is an excerpt from today’s transcript:

Look, as for the presidency, we just past one year anniversary two days into the second year. I think what we are seeing up close every day relentlessly is a post-heroic presidency. A presidency for a post-heroic era. People don't have illusions about how high and upstanding and rigorously upholding of values that the president is. And at the same time everybody in politics around him sees it, sees that it plays fairly well for him, that he is sometimes gross or abrupt or rude in his terminology. So they do it too. It does lower everything. We are living through a cultural lowering.

Old Gadfly:  As a credentialed psychologist, from a psychological perspective I do not believe Noonan truly understands what she is revealing when she says, “what we are seeing up close relentlessly.”  What we are “seeing” is social constructivism by a progressive elite who control the public narrative and the desire to create a culture based on their values.  For example, race is a socially constructed concept that has been very useful for political purposes.  Racism is therefore an inevitable socially constructed concept as well.  Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, misogynist, and the entire litany of similar terms are other examples. More importantly, regarding Noonan’s claim about a post-heroic period, what do you infer from this?

AM:  Obviously, the implication is that Trump represents the antonym of heroic. Think about this.  By implication, Noonan places the previous president (not mentioning him by name to honor his current practice of not mentioning President Trump by name when being critical of him during evening talk shows) in the heroic category.  According to Thesaurus, here are synonyms for heroic: bold, courageous, daring, epic, fearless, gallant, grand, gutsy, noble, valiant, classic, elevated, bigger than life, dauntless, doughty, exaggerated, fire-eating, grandiose, gritty, gutty, high flown, impavid, inflated, intrepid, lion-hearted, mythological, stand tall, stouthearted, unafraid, undaunted, valorous.  Certainly, the previous President can be described with some of these terms.  Yet, pigeon chess master is not one of them—but that would fit more under a psychiatric manifestation of delusions of grandeur, not heroism.  On the other hand, Thesaurus lists the following as antonyms of heroic:  afraid, cowardly, fearful, meek, shy, timid, and weak.  Strangely, none of these terms fit for either the previous President or President Trump.

Old Gadfly:  Ironically, after watching Meet the Press, I opened an email from my uncle.  He forwarded a reflection by Mychal S. Massie, who “is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry.  Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit ‘In His Name Ministries.’  He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research.  In his official capacity with this free-market, public-policy think tank, he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and testified in private session concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources.”  Massie explained why President Trump is such a mystery to the establishment in Washington DC and other political elite in political parties, the media, academia, and Hollywood.  President Trump is neither liberal nor conservative—he’s a pragmatist.  He further contends President Trump has risked a hard earned fortune to solve problems both political parties have created, let alone solve.  Sounds heroic to me.  Here is Massie’s article.  I now more deeply understand the political elite’s mind set.  They do not understand the difference between pragmatism and politics.  Politics requires glibness and visceral emotions; pragmatism requires reason unconstrained by “looking good” and “feel good” language.  Meanwhile, those who earn good livings based on ideological politics, glibness, and visceral arguments, will continue droning on and demonizing President Trump while he keeps moving forward pragmatically Making America Great Again.

IM:  Doesn’t President Trump need some help in this process?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, he does.  Help may be on the way in the form of the Article V (of the US Constitution) movement.  Here is an excellent observation from Bob Berry (author and economist), one of the pioneers in the movement:

 [Thomas] Paine’s words ring especially true regarding our present situation.  As he observed, “there is something very absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.”  How much more absurd is it today, the whole of our country’s land-mass and its 310 million inhabitants is ruled with an iron fist from a 68-square mile swamp along the Potomac.  Excerpt from Amendments without Congress:  A Timely Gift from the Founders (2012) by Bob Berry

The nearly miraculous part of this movement is that it is nonpartisan.  It avoids political agendas in favor of restoring the sound governing principles of a Constitutional Republic gifted to us by heroic and pragmatic Americans.  Unfortunately, opponents tend to base their arguments on political agendas.  See for example the excellent analysis provided by Dennis Haugh in Political Vertigo and other postings at his website.

 

While the political elite play their political games, let me know if you want to learn more about this self-governing citizen effort (Old Gadfly at oldgadfly@gmail.com)

S***Holes and S*** Sandwiches

          Old Gadfly:  Frustrated at Democrat intransigence (i.e., for Democrats it can only be win-lose, or lose-lose) in resolving DACA in particular and illegal immigration in general, President Trump said what many already think and know:  some countries in the international system really are s*** holes.  As an Air Force officer I served in more than one.

 

Even though God created all humans in His image, all human beings do not live up to His image.  Would God kill a baby in His womb?  Would God use humans as instruments to increase His power—like pushing for a welfare state where millions are dependent upon Democrat generosity coercively enabled by other people’s earned wealth?  I could list other examples, but this should suffice in light of yesterday’s announcement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  Here is their statement:

Reports of recent disparaging remarks about African countries and Haiti have aroused great concern.  As our brothers and sisters from these countries are primarily people of color, these alleged remarks are especially disturbing.  All human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and comments that denigrate nations and peoples violate the fundamental truth and cause real pain to our neighbors.  It is regrettable that this comes on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and could distract from the urgent bipartisan effort to help Dreamers and those with Temporary Protected Status.  As a vigorous debate continues over the future of immigration, we must always be sure to avoid language that can dehumanize our brothers and sisters.

Dehumanizing language?  So, is the USCCB saying these areas are paradises?  It is the political corruption in these areas that dehumanizes our brothers and sisters.  There is plenty of evidence the citizens of Venezuela are angry with the socialist initiatives ushered in by the late Hugo Chavez—turning this previous first-world nation into a s*** hole.  And, as a former President (in following Obama’s practice, I am not mentioning his name while he denigrates his successor without mentioning his name—but the media does not find this as immoral as one being open and authentic in his descriptions) would say about getting off our high horses, Old Testament prophets were brutally “honest” about s*** holes during their time.  During the same “high horse speech,” this former President said nothing about the s*** hole called the Middle East that has killed hundreds of thousands in the name of their “high horse” religion—generating millions of refugees.

 

I suppose the USCCB would qualify its language when referring to the Islamists who cut off heads and enjoy sex with captive women, whom “their right hands possess” (Qur'an 4:25), according to modern Islamic jurists.  Even St. Thomas Aquinas was blunt about Mohammad in Summa Contra Gentiles (Chapter 6), when he argued “THAT TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE TRUTHS OF FAITH IS NOT FOOLISHNESS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABOVE REASON.”  Since his thinking predated the wisdom of modern political correctness, here is what Aquinas actually claimed about Muhammad:

On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this. The point is clear in the case of Muhammad.  He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.  On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.  Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.  It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

 

            By the way, to demonstrate how s*** sandwiches are created, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Editor-in Chief of The Study Qur'an, states “Without the advent of the Qur'an, . . . would there be the Summas of St. Thomas Aquinas, at least in their existing form, since these Summas contain so many ideas drawn from Islamic source” (p. xxviii).  When readers have been threatened against reading other sources, this claim is difficult to challenge, let alone refuted.  We can see from Aquinas’ own words above that Nasr seems to be making stuff up.

To the USCCB, I offer this warning.  President Trump is actively and boldly fighting for religious freedom in America.  His predecessor (the unnamed President) and the progressive secular humanist left is fighting hard to take it away.  P*** him off and President Trump might just stop fighting for our religious freedom, letting you do all the heavy lifting.

This brings me to s*** sandwiches.  As I watch the media feeding frenzy about President Trump’s honest description of very corrupted regions of the world, the “characterization” of this description  contributes to the s*** sandwich being created by the progressive left.  So, if I suggest the bread in our sandwich is white, I’m a racist.  So, let’s assume the bread is rye.  When people eat a sandwich, it is what is between the slices of bread that is the essence of the sandwich.  The slices in this case represent credibility and plausibility—something a free press is supposed to provide.

Here is the first sandwich—the Affordable Care Act—designed to be affordable, more accessible, and if you like your doctor and health insurance plans, you can keep them.  This s*** proved to be false.  Swallowing it proved more disgusting than the s*** hole rhetoric.

Here is the second sandwich—bringing America together, not red America or blue America, but one America.  The only problem with this promise is that it required “transforming America” into “progressive America.”  This meant socialism, about which younger generations have no idea—but they are of voting age. Heck, who doesn’t want a free lunch, let alone health care, education, smart phones, and so forth?

Here is a third sandwich—using the government bureaucracy to serve political agendas.  Fast & Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the Iran nuclear deal, unmasking of American citizens, the Russian dossier, and so forth are all examples of how to weaponize a government against political opponents.  When he is the prime target, President Trump is supposed to play by their rules?  Thank God for Twitter.

 

I can go on, but let there be no doubt.  President Trump did not fall out of the sky.  He was elected by discerning Americans who are not willing to consume the left’s s*** sandwiches.

Speaking of discernment, I am reminded of the Roman Catholic’s understanding of five of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit:  knowledge, understanding, discernment, wisdom, and courage.  The first four speak to recognizing s*** holes and s*** sandwiches.  The fifth speaks to the capacity to do something about them.  Right or wrong, our actions then relate to the remaining gifts of the Holy Spirit—Fear of the Lord and Reverence.  We will be held accountable in the afterlife, and unfortunately (for the left and those who mimic its sound bites) it requires doing what is right—whether elegant or not.  

Who’s Afraid of Michael Wolff?

Old Gadfly:  The buzz dominating the current news cycle is Michael Wolf’s book, Fire and Fury:  Inside the Trump White House.  Your thoughts?

IM:  I watched his interview on Meet the Press this morning, and he said he was welcomed into the West Wing with no agenda.

AM:  Is that possible?  As a graduate of Columbia University and Vassar College, a copy boy for the New York Times, columnist, and entrepreneur, Wolff took advantage of a money-making opportunity.  He clearly had an agenda.  How can any individual claim to have no preconceived notions or predilections?  He claims to have been allowed to wonder about, “to sit on the couch,” simply observing and asking occasional questions.  If so, members of the White House appear to be open and transparent.  If so, they did not suspect Wolff’s intentions.  Knowing the public has yet to turn off all the fake news, Wolff generated material to feed off of this feeding frenzy.  He will become wealthy, possibly with “30 pieces of silver” from this book.  Perhaps someday he may come to grips with a conscience like Judas.

IM:  The picture you paint reminds me of an observation by Cicero:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

AM:  Ironically, in 1962, Edward Albee wrote a book that became a hit on stage:  Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolff?  He also made a fortune from this work.

The themes in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff? dealt with reality and illusion.  Although Michael Wolff claims he had no agenda, based on the themes in Albee’s book, it seems Wolff may have “plagiarized” Albee's creative essentials to sensationalize human behavior in an atmosphere already agitated by a swarming anti-Trump mainstream media.  Here is a critique (presented by Wikipedia) of Albee’s work—notice the parallels to M. Wolff’s book:

. . . this play stands as an opponent of the idea of a perfect American family and societal expectations as it "attacks the false optimism and myopic confidence of modern society".  Albee takes a heavy-handed approach to the display of this contrast, making examples out of every character and their own expectations for the people around them. Societal norms of the 1950s consisted of a nuclear family, two parents and two (or more) children. This conception was picturesque in the idea that the father was the breadwinner, the mother was a housewife, and the children were well-behaved.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? smashes these conventions and shows realistic families that are far from perfect and possibly ruined. The families of Honey and Martha were dominated by their fathers, there being no sign of a mother-figure in their lives. George and Martha's chance at a perfect family was ruined by infertility and George's failure at becoming a prominent figure at the university. Being just a few of many, these examples directly challenge social expectations both within and outside of a family setting.

Old Gadfly:  On a broader level, this book episode merely affirms the progressive left’s notion that man is perfectible—the Marxist notion of a state-created Utopian paradise this side of the grave.  Trump is caricatured by the progressive left as the antithesis of their holy mission.  I'll just close with this.  Earlier this week, I watched a Star Trek movie, Star Trek:  The First Contact.  It introduced the Borg.  I could not help but suspect it could happen much earlier than their timeline.  Like now.  In witnessing today's political and media behavior, this line from the movie stood out:  "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."