It Can Happen Here

by

Gadfly

           A close friend sent to me a book review by Cass Sunstein, published in The New York Times.  The title of the review was, “It Can Happen Here.”  The implication of the article is that President Trump is like Hitler in his authoritarian tendencies.

Sunstein’s review includes books by other authors from a personal, “lived experience” perspective.  In my opinion (based on years of research), whether deliberate or accidental, presentations such as Sunstein's distract from a more sinister development in America.  He writes well and his arguments are compelling in an ideographic sense—that is, plausible analysis of a phenomenon within a very narrow scope.  In this case, the scope is a set of memoirs of ordinary people who lived during the rise and reign of Hitler.  These arguments become incidental, merely anecdotal, and diminished from a nomothetic perspective—that is, an understanding of a phenomenon within a much broader context.  In the more comprehensive nomothetic case, it is important to understand the conditions that enabled Hitler’s rise to power.

Simply put, the conditions that enabled the Hitler phenomenon were quite apparent.  First, Germany was a democracy.  Democracies allow for the manifestation of mob behavior and natural transition to socialism (and eventually the more extreme fascist form of national socialism).  Second, the signatory nations of the Versailles Treaty isolated, alienated, and shamed the German population.  Third, economic conditions agitated the population.  The population was ready for hope and change, and Hitler promised it.  He rose to power democratically.  Hitler and the German population sought reparations—that is, payback.  In other words, German lives mattered.  The Nazis and the SS were a minority of the overall population, they controlled the public narrative and the political agenda, not unlike what we see playing out in America.  A major difference of note:  Germany and Poland have not torn down residual physical remains of concentration camps.  To the contrary, they keep them to remember important lessons from history.

  

My friend is a decent and honorable man, and certainly not an outlier in the population of concerned Americans.  I have read many opinion pieces with similar implications advanced by Sunstein, even a booklet by Yale historian Timothy Snyder:  On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century.  These authors seek evidence to support their belief that Trump is an authoritarian.  Yet, the evidence is normative in that what they present are unwarranted assertions about what they want to believe.  For example, in Sunstein’s review, he states:

If the president of the United States is constantly lying, complaining that the independent press is responsible for fake news, calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks, publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents, undermining the authority of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, magnifying social divisions, delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing,” and even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint—well, it’s not fascism, but the United States has not seen anything like it before.

           Let us unpack this statement.

 

Constantly lying.  The left has been constant in their accusation that President Trump lies.  Sunstein provides no examples.  No need to.  If the left says it enough, it becomes true (Germany’s Goebbels was fully aware of this maxim).

 

There is no doubt that Trump exaggerates and says bold things, but this does not rise to the level of lies.  Trump may truly believe the things he says, even if they turn out not to be true.  We often hear politicians say, “I misspoke,” even when they lie.

 

Did President Obama lie when he repeatedly told the public, “you can keep your doctor” or that families would save $2,500 a year in health care premiums?  Now we know from Jonathon Gruber and Ben Rhodes that the Obama Administration deliberately lied to advance its agenda—in particular, Obamacare and the Iran Nuclear Deal, respectively.

    

Independent press is responsible for fake news.  Does any reasonable person believe the press is independent?  The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world and a leftist progressive.  The New York Times fired an editor for allowing Senator Cotton’s op-ed to be published.  Except for Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and a handful of radio programs and other digital news sources, the mainstream media is leftist, progressive, and anti-Trump.  ABC’s Nightly News with David Muir has yet to cover any of the news related to exculpatory evidence in the Lieutenant General Michael Flynn case or the dozens of Congressman Schiff’s committee transcripts finally made public.

Calling for the withdrawal of licenses from television networks.  This was mere frustrated rhetoric.  No licenses were withdrawn.  Yet, under the Obama Administration, there was an attempt to place government monitors in news rooms.  This would have put a real damper on an independent press.

        

Publicly demanding jail sentences for political opponents.  This is true.  One individual who was singled out was Hillary Clinton.  The “exoneration” effort by FBI Director Comey was a gross violation of our legal system.  Comey not only delineated federal crimes committed, he circumvented the normal process for prosecuting them.  As Comey, Clinton, and others like to repeat, “no one is above the law,” unless you are a member of the political left.  How many prosecutions of criminals who happen to be political opponents have taken place under the Trump Administration?  Zero . . . so far.  Meanwhile, Obama holdovers have viciously prosecuted Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and several others who happened to be political operatives with the Trump campaign.

The Obama Administration put journalists under surveillance and censored conservative groups using the IRS.  The Obama Administration spied on the Trump campaign and orchestrated a silent coup through the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation, transitioned to the Mueller investigation, and then an impeachment.

    

Undermining the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  It was the senior leaders of the DOJ and FBI that undermined President Trump’s authority. DOJ’s Yates issued a directive to DOJ officials not to enforce one of President Trump’s Executive Orders (a federal judge later placed an injunction on the Order and the Supreme Court ruled the Order constitutional); Rosenstein appointed Mueller as the Special Prosecutor and illegally authorized FISA warrants; and Ohr violated department protocols in advancing the fallacious Steele Dossier.  They were not loyal to the Office of the President; more accurately, they were seditious.  The FBI’s Comey, McCabe, Baker, Strzok, Page, and others were actively involved in illegally delegitimizing President Trump, but worse, targeting Trump’s political circle for manipulated prosecutions.  Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and other socialist leaders knew how to silence political opposition.  Yes, it can happen here—it already has.

Magnifying social divisions. Calling people racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, and so forth does not make them so.  It is the left that magnifies and celebrates social division with its emphasis on diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.

Delegitimizing critics as “crooked” or “failing.”  If anyone is criticized based on false or fabricated information, then what is an appropriate response?  After millions of taxpayer funding spent over two years of the Mueller investigation and the extraordinary partisan impeachment fiasco, it is understandable that President Trump would consider these efforts to be crooked and failures.

Even refusing, in violation of the law, to protect young children against the risks associated with lead paint.  This allegation was good for generating political capital for the left’s agenda.  However, the same news sources advancing this narrative have not reported Trump Administration efforts to the contrary.

Sunstein and his like-minded cohort may not realize that they are members of America's intelligentsia.  The word “intelligentsia” originated in Russia about the time of the Bolshevik Revolution.  It describes an educated group that feels superior in its theories about progress and an imagined future utopia.  Their intentions are noble within the context of their self-proclaimed moral superiority.  They represent an echo chamber that is socially and politically isolated from the general population they seek to control.

    

           Ironically, the title of Sunstein’s article was inspired by Sinclair Lewis’s novel, It Can’t Happen Here.

 

Lewis’s wife was a journalist who followed Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.  So, Lewis wrote about the possibility taking place in America.  The lead character was modeled after Louisiana Governor Huey Long, a democrat, who wanted to defeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential primary.  Long did not think FDR’s policies were left (socialist) enough.  Here is a sample of Long’s Share the Wealth movement and political agenda.  Sound familiar?

The left complains that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.  This would have sufficed in a democracy.  America is still a republic (founded as such because America’s Founders feared the extreme manifestations of democracy)—unless and until sufficiently destroyed by the left’s current deliberate and well-funded mobocracy.  That is why the Electoral College still determines the winner, to prevent large, government-centric metropolitan areas from dominating rural areas.

 

The fact that Trump advances a political agenda that is contrary to the left’s is a matter of values (i.e., personal liberty and responsibility, self-governance through a Constitutional Republic, truth and justice, religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal protection and due process, etc.) reflected by the political faction that supported his election.  Trump believes in personal responsibility and a government that protects individual rights, not a government that compels individuals to assimilate into a collective group (e.g., political identity groups) subsidized by the government.

 

In 2016, the Trump and Clinton campaign slogans said a lot: “Make America Great Again” (for all Americans) versus “I’m with Her” (appealing to one political faction).  This Trump campaign video (you will not find this on YouTube; and Facebook and Twitter will not allow it to be “shared”) was candid about the political landscape and his intent to preserve America’s republic.  One of his important arguments was about corporatism and the unholy alliance between large corporations and the media—one of the central features of fascism in Germany and Italy).  Clinton’s slogan and comprehensive litany of policy proposals spoke to an authoritarian perspective.

 

Trump’s message appeals to hard working, law abiding citizens.  The left’s message appeals to the power elite and those looking for government-provided (taxpayer funded) free lunches.

 

While Trump’s approach and language may be out of the ordinary, they are an attempt to restore republican statesmanship to an environment infested by democratically-corrupt politicians, from the deceitful to the feckless.  With eyes wide open, Trump does not bring an olive branch to a knife fight.  As Teddy Roosevelt understood in his day, Trump has fully embraced his duty as the man in the arena:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

A Democracy If You Can Keep It

by

Gadfly

           Oops.  Didn’t Franklin say, “A Republic if you can keep it”?  Yes, he did.
  

Then why do so many say that President Trump is a threat to our democracy?  Even Chris Wallace from Fox News argued for a free press to protect our democracy.

The problem with the public drama surrounding the political removal of a duly elected president is that it is compelled by distortion of the truth—some deliberate, some likely from ignorance.  Either way, there is no justification for it.  I’ll use two major examples to rebuke this concerted scheme (in vogue now by Democrats):  democracy versus a republic and foreign influence.

Democracy versus Republic

There appears to be a complete disregard or obliviousness to the distinction between a democracy and a republic.  Despite our Framers being frequently cited in current rhetoric, our Framers were explicit about their disdain of democracy.  Therefore, they formed a Constitutional Republic. Federalist 10 explains this rationale.  Furthermore, in the 1840s, Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned about the inevitability of tyranny and despotism in a democracy.

  

Despite clear and unequivocal intent by our Framers, there are two major forces that have emasculated our Republic.

  

Secularization

A set of political movements have influenced a loss of American affiliation with religion.  The left advances secular values that are contrary to religious values, especially Judeo-Christian.  A reduction in religious affiliation has led to moral relativism, which enables immorality from a religious perspective.

  

Former Bill Clinton has been in the news due to his own impeachment experience.  Most focus on the perjury charge as not rising to the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors.  He lied to a grand jury about engaging in sexual behavior with someone other than his wife.  Most of Clinton’s supporters would tell us that the sexual behavior is a private matter and of no concern.  Yet, the behavior was with a much younger intern, in the Oval Office no less.

  

Based on Department of Defense zero-tolerance policy, I witnessed the firing of a commander, a full bird colonel, for tolerating sexual harassment.  In this case, the commander was present in a bar-room setting among members of his unit when another person told a joke that offended the individual who filed the complaint.  Aware of the President’s behavior, many of our military personnel were perplexed by the apparent double standard, especially when the behaviors were so starkly contrasted—one involved a bystander to a risqué joke in a bar, the other an adulterous activity with a much younger subordinate in the Oval Office.

     

John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The Administrative State

The other major force is the ubiquitousness of the Administrative State.  Our Constitution was designed to limit powers at the national level.  Yet, specific powers delineated to the three separate branches of government have passed to an unelected and mostly unaccountable bureaucracy.

  

Hillsdale College provides a tremendous public service by providing online courses at no cost to the general public.  One of those courses is Constitution 101.  Lesson 10 addresses the Administrative State.  Here is the overview for the lesson:

  

The modern administrative state transformed the American republic into an oligarchy. Today, an elite and insular administrative class rules without the consent of American citizens. Moreover, administrative rule is both anti-constitutional and pre-constitutional, because it replaces the rule of law with unaccountable regulatory agencies.

The trillions of public debt and unfunded liabilities closely correlate with the growth of the Administrative State.  Moreover, corporate cronyism and welfare contribute to the oligarchic nature of America’s system of governance.  The original understanding of our Constitution provided for a republic that would have been resistant, and far less vulnerable, to the corrupting powers enabled by democracy and now manifested as an oligarchy.

Foreign Influence


           Democrats accuse President Trump of engaging in efforts to meddle in elections through foreign influence.  They allege Trump leveraged critical military aid in order to pressure the new Ukrainian President to get dirt on a political opponent in the 2020 election.  How do they know?  They base it on two narratives:  one by the so-called whistleblower and one by a dramatic performance by Congressman Adam Schiff.  This is called framing, and George Lakoff (a progressive UC-Berkeley professor) is a master at how to do this.  As he asserts, it is the frame that matters, if facts fit, great; if not, the facts are irrelevant.  This is obvious when comparing the whistleblower and Schiff “frame” with the actual transcript of the telephone call.
   

Democrats pontificate that our Framers were extremely sensitive to the threat of foreign influence in our presidential elections.  A review of The Federalist Papers (the authoritative rationale for our Constitution) reveals a different story.  There are multiple mentions of foreign influence.  None address concerns that a president might seek foreign influence in elections.  Only one—Federalist 68--relates to foreign influence in a presidential election.  It explains how the Electoral College mitigates this threat.  Yet, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Other Papers—3, 5, 7, 43, and 48--explain how a republic over a looser democratic confederation reduces the threat of foreign influence.  More significantly, other Papers—16, 22, 55, 59, and 75—argue how easy it is for foreign influence on corrupt government officials, such as members of Congress and its staff.  Therefore, a republic, with an executive elected by the Electoral College, is superior to a parliamentary democracy.

The current Democrat impeachment effort, complete with its lack of legitimacy regarding an impeachable offense, fully intends to emasculate the executive—in terms of enforcing the law of the land (i.e., Biden bribery) and advancing foreign policy—is a clear scheme to meddle in the 2020 presidential election.  Fortunately, polls are reflecting that the public sees through this scheme.

Getting through this chapter is not enough.  We cannot simply be content with winning the current impeachment contest.  The impeachment represents a symptom of far greater issues that stem from deviating from the essence of a Constitutional Republic.  We must restore our Constitutional Republic, enabled and fortified by a moral and religious people.    

America’s Neoimperialists

by

Gadfly

           On October 7, 2019, President Trump decided to withdraw American troops from Syria after Turkish President Erdogan had decided to move forces into Syria.  Trump objected to this action; but, when confronted with this scenario, he decided not to leave 28 special forces members in the path as a speed bump.  When the Turkish action expanded, Trump then further directed other American forces to also withdraw.
  

Trump received immediate pushback and condemnation from America’s neo-imperialists, representing Democrats and Republicans.  Others seem to understand the logic for his decision, especially when factoring in the historical and geopolitical context.  In the final analysis, this particular decision combined with others in his first three years in office, should be recognized as President Trump’s well-developed capacity for strategic intuition (of course, my anti-Trump friends are likely laughing or snickering about this assertion because it is contrary to their caricature of Trump).

  

Let’s unpack key points in the preceding paragraph:  historical and geopolitical context, American neoimperialism, and Trump’s strategic intuition.

Historical and Geopolitical Context


           Why is the United States in Syria?  Most would answer:  to defeat or contain ISIS/ISIL.  While this is true, it obfuscates a much broader set of circumstances that make the answer significantly more complicated.

Speaker Pelosi is leading the charge in condemning Trump’s Syria decision.  Ironically, we should remind ourselves of an event that took place in April 2007.  Within three months of Democrats resuming control of both houses of Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.  This trip was in direct defiance of the President George W. Bush and State Department foreign policy to isolate Assad and his regime.  Through this action, Pelosi revealed her colors in terms of ideology and its justification for violating political norms.  In the process, she “greenlighted” Assad’s subsequent actions to stay in power.  Pelosi broadcasted to the world that political power in America was divided and that there was no loyalty to a duly elected President’s policy agenda.

  

Patterns are important in understanding the nature of behavior, whether virtuous or not.  This past week, Pelosi rebuked President Trump in the White House for his lack of loyalty to the Kurds.  On Saturday, she led a Congressional delegation (one token Republican who will not run for reelection) to Jordan to discuss the situation in Syria.  Pelosi’s message to the world:  Trump is not America’s legitimate President.

  

Article II of our Constitution gives foreign policy authority to the Executive branch (led by the President), not Congress.  Article I gives Congress legislative powers that may shape or constrain foreign policy; this is why they have oversight authority—but this is merely to ensure proper application of any legislation.

   

There is an old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”  The saying usually refers to adultery.  In this case, Pelosi is married to an ideology, and she will punish Trump or anyone else who does not submit to her ideology.

Let us also not forget that Pelosi was elected from one Congressional district in California—San Francisco.  While she and her husband live in luxury in a gated community, thousands of homeless and drug addicted persons wonder the city that was once a favorite tourist attraction.  She has done nothing for her neighbors but now wants to virtue signal about abandoning Kurdish people.

The leftist media were quick to say Trump “greenlighted” Erdogan’s actions.  When one controls a megaphone, he or she controls the narrative.  Framing is the most important part of the narrative.  So they suggest Trump violated some norms.  In this case that he abandoned “allies.”  The most reliable norms are those grounded in the law, such as international law, treaties, and so forth.  These are the norms (and framework) within which Trump operates.  Was the President supposed to coerce Erdogan, the elected leader of a sovereign nation, into not pursuing his actions?  By what authority?  Turkey is a sovereign nation and a member of NATO.  Syria is a sovereign nation and not a member of NATO.  The Kurds are an ethnic demographic that is not a sovereign nation (although it has been recognized as a quasi-state called Kurdistan since around 1970 by other political factions in the region), nor is it a member of NATO, nor is it homogenous.  There are Turkish, Syrian, and Iraqi Kurds (see LTC [USMC, retired] Mike Ford’s excellent article on Kurdish demographics here).  Some Kurds also live in Iran.

  

To complicate this quagmire are Russia’s interests.  Russia is a friend of Syria and is courting Turkey.  Is there an opportunity for Russia to be part of the solution?  Given Turkey’s proximity to former Soviet republics, Russia seems to have a greater interest from a geopolitical perspective.  Russia needs opportunities to be more constructive as a  former major power.  To understand this requires strategic intuition.  Perhaps, those not already blinded by America’s neoimperialists might envision a more stable and durable future with Russia (and Europe) as a positive player.  Trump understands this.

For a reasoned explanation of the Turkish, Syrian, and Kurdish situation see Mike Ford’s series of articles here, here, here, and here.  In the last article, Ford discusses the intentions and consequences of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.  The imperialist nations involved in this action of redrawing national boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire were Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy.  The United States played no role.  Today, Russia is still involved.  Where are the great powers of Great Britain, France, and Italy in mitigating the consequences of their imperialism from the early 1900s?

Turkey is mostly Sunni.  Kurds are mostly Sunni.  Syria is mostly Sunni.  ISIS/ISIL is Sunni.  In other words, the players here are mostly Sunni Muslims.  Other players in the regional conflict are Saudi Arabia, mostly Sunni, and Iran, mostly Shia (which is but one manifestation of Islamism’s contradictions).

  

We are told Islam is a religion of peace.  If this were so, then why is the Middle East one of the most unpeaceful regions in the world?  Perhaps there is a simple clue:  the word Islam means submission. 

The absurdity here is that the Islamic model for peace requires total submission to an ideology that is flawed due to its internal contradictions.  The same is true for America’s neoimperialists (especially those who champion the oppressed while championing a mother’s right to kill the child in her womb).

America’s Neoimperialists


           What is imperialism?   According to Dictionary.com, imperialism is “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”   American domestic and foreign policy has manifested imperialism throughout our history:  internally in conquering native Americans in our westward expansion; externally in coopting proxy allies (like the Kurds) in its defense against communist expansion (like ISIS/ISIL).


           A new form of external imperialism (neoimperialism) took shape during the Clinton Administration in its series of military operations other than war (MOOTW).  We studied the MOOTW phenomenon when I was a student at the Air War College in the 1990s.  While prominent in the 1990s, the United States has a record of MOOTW beginning in 1916 (see Appendix A in a RAND monograph here), the same year as the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Even in 1994, I realized American policy was imperialistic and argued this point in a paper that America’s Middle Eastern policy ignored or dismissed the sovereign role the Gulf Cooperation Council could play in managing the region’s conflict-related issues.


           Of course, George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four clearly understood the importance of imperialism in the disguise of Big Brother “protection” in Oceania’s endless war.  Big Brother (the establishment) preached “War is Peace.”  The ruled depended upon this power for their safety.  Nineteen Eighty-Four was merely a dystopian novel; but it stemmed from Orwell’s observation of socialism up through the mid-1940s.


           “Endless wars.”  Does this sound familiar?  Donald Trump campaigned on his opposition to endless wars.  Again, why do we have American forces in Syria?  Mostly to protect us from ISIS/ISIL.  In my opinion, the only way we can defeat this threat is to defeat the ideology.  But this is an unwanted challenge for America’s neoimperialists.
  

           America’s neoimperialists (an empire defined as a monolithic political ideology—Marxist progressivism) are still engaged in domestic conquest:  the progressive ideology must defeat any views that are different.  The progressive ideology is Marxist, which involves a ruling elite to liberate the oppressed.  This is why identity politics and illegal immigration are critical to this ideology.  To progressives, individual liberty is oppressive.  This is why progressives advance political correctness (some free speech is offensive) and safe spaces on college campuses.  To progressives, collective liberty is liberating.  Like Islam, Marxism and its neoimperialist facade called progressivism is based on contradictions: “War Is Peace,” “Political Correctness Is Truth,” “Submission Is Freedom,” “Criminal Activity Is Just” (e.g., sanctuary cities or states), “Plunder Is Just” (e.g., progressive tax schemes to redistribute wealth), and so forth.


           America’s neoimperialists no longer hide in the open.  They are now blatant because they control the narrative (in the media, academia, government, and Hollywood) that in turn shapes public sentiment, to include Republicans.


           In a recent New York Times Newsletter, David Leonhardt encouraged Elizabeth Warren to become “ruthless” toward President Trump.  Leonhardt and his leftist ideologues imply that President Trump is all by himself, as if he does not represent the political will of half of America’s population.  But, Trump and half of America have a view that is not consistent with the progressive ideology.  This is evidence of a civil war.


           The left talks about the political divide (that they arguably created and continue to magnify).  They presume they are the ones to unite Americans.  What do they mean by “uniting Americans”?  One party—just like Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism.  There is no compromise.  It’s progressivism or nothing.  If the left cannot win, no one can.


           As for Republicans, they either do not understand the strategic implications of America’s civil war, or they lack any ounce of a backbone (shall we say courage?).  This is not the first time Republican fecklessness led to a major shift in America’s political dynamics.  At one point early in his first term, President George W. Bush enjoyed nearly 90% approval.  This did not bode well in terms of political capital for Democrats.  Democrats, then the minority in both houses of Congress, orchestrated an anti-Bush campaign in concert with a leftist media.  By 2006, Democrats took back both houses of Congress and, using that momentum, prepped the political battleground for Obama’s election in 2008.  Where were the Republicans during this anti-Bush campaign?  Most slithered into the shadows and left Bush on his own to fight a two-front war:  America’s leftist neoimperialists and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.


           Bush is not without some blame.  He had confidence in the “advice” from neoconservatives that were and are part of a neoimperialistic political establishment.  He would not admit it, but Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton were and are neoconservatives (look at Clinton’s national strategies that involved democratizing the world).
  

As in the anti-Bush campaign, today’s Republicans are demonstrating how easily duped they can be by recklessly voting along with Democrats to condemn President Trump’s decision in Syria.  Of all of them, perhaps the most self-serving Republican leading the campaign against President Trump is Mitt Romney (I voted for him; he did not appear to be ruthless at the time).  Unfortunately, evil is banal until it achieves momentum; then it fully displays its true nature.

           As much as the left and many feckless Republicans caricaturize and resist President Trump’s authority as a duly elected President, they do not recognize, let alone appreciate, his strategic intuition.
              

Trump’s Strategic Intuition


           I first learned about strategic intuition from a book by William Duggan, Strategic Intuition:  The Creative Spark in Human Achievement.  (Note:  for context, I read this book along with a lot of others and journal articles during my work as a strategic analyst in addressing Islamist counterterrorism).


           According to Duggan, there are three types of intuition:  ordinary, expert, and strategic.  Ordinary intuition is a feeling or an undeveloped hunch about something.  The leftist media seems to demonstrate this type in its constant narrative against Trump. House Republicans who voted to condemn Trump’s decision about Syria demonstrated this type of intuition.

Expert intuition represents snap judgments requiring action in familiar circumstances.  Napoleon exercised expert tuition on the battlefield.  Current anti-Trump flag officers such as Admiral McRaven (see for example his recent New York Times op-ed here) attempt to inject their geopolitical views from an expert tuition perspective.  Firefighters demonstrate expert intuition when fighting fires in different scenarios.

  

Regarding strategic intuition, here is how Duggan describes it on his book jacket: “Strategic intuition is a clear thought.  And it’s not fast like expert intuition.  It’s slow.  That flash of insight you had last night might solve a problem that’s been on your mind for a month.  And it doesn’t happen in familiar situations, like a tennis match.  Strategic intuition works in new situations.  That’s when you need it most.”  Recent Presidents who demonstrated strategic intuition are Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.  Recent flag officers who demonstrated strategic intuition are Generals Fogelman (institutional character-based culture), Petraeus (regional cultural diversity), and Schwartz (institutional relevance into the future).

     

Duggan, by the way, is highly critical of President Trump (see here).  Duggan has written three books, was a strategy consultant for 20 years, and is a professor of business at Columbia University.

  

Of course, Columbia has become somewhat of an echo chamber for leftist ideologies and ideologues.  American Communist Bella Dodd and her academic cohort received their first indoctrination and training in communist methods at Columbia.  Richard Clowan and Frances Fox Piven found tenure at Columbia and fertile ground to advance their socialist strategies involving the collapse of capitalism to open the door for a socialist government.  For example, see here.  When one looks at the accumulation of national debt and unfunded liabilities, the Clowan-Piven strategy to achieve national bankruptcy appears to be working.

  

One final note about Columbia.  Following World War II, Dwight Eisenhower was hired to serve as President of Columbia University.  While his tenure was relatively short, there is no mention of Eisenhower on Columbia’s website history.  Eisenhower understood the threat of Soviet and Chinese Communism and initiated policies to contain it during what is known as The Cold War.  Eisenhower was not a leftist ideologue; thus, Columbia expelled him from their elitist club.

In comparison to Duggan, Trump has owned and run businesses for five decades, worked the complicated nexus between political power players (government) and the private sector, and has authored at least 14 books.  Three of Trump’s books laid the groundwork for becoming the duly elected President of the United States:  The America We Deserve (2000), Time to Get Tough:  Make America Great Again (2011); and Crippled America:  How to Make America Great Again (2015).  Trump’s books revealed his thinking over many years.

  

Contrary to Admiral McRaven’s assertion that “Trump is attacking on our republic,” Trump believes very strongly in the foundational principles of a Constitutional Republic.  He believes in the checks and balances of our Constitution.  He believes in federalism.  He believes in the rule of law.  He believes in truth (which he knows is distorted by fake news) and justice.  He also believes in God and that our inalienable rights were granted by God.  As one of our nation’s Founders/Framers observed, a constitutional republic can only work for a moral and religious people.

  

There are no surprises in Trump’s agenda.  He wrote about it, promised it in his presidential campaign, and is now fulfilling his promises except where he is being blocked by a leftist House of Representatives and leftist federal judges.  These are America’s neoimperialists, totally committed to uniting America under one progressive political party.

The leftist progressives, publicly led by their poster child Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are ruthless.  Ruthlessness is not a virtue.  And even acts that appear virtuous, such as virtue signaling compassion for the Kurds, do not reveal the motivation for “virtue signaling.”  It is the motivation that determines virtue or vice and a pattern that is consistent with the motivation.  In this case, the Kurds are mere instruments (as are blacks, the LGTB, women, illegal immigrants, etc.) in the left’s scheme to continue their broader leftist cabal to undermine and remove a duly elected President who seeks liberty and justice for all.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Report (when finally released) and the Barr/Durham investigations might be enough to disrupt the leftist grip on America.  If not, we may all soon be addressing each other as “comrade.”

Trump Qualification Concerns

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, aside from all the fake news about the nature of Russian hacking, it seems to me the central concern from the left is that Trump is unqualified to be president and lacks presidential demeanor.  Your thoughts?

IM:  Let’s address the unqualified allegation first.  The only Constitutional qualifications for president are stated in Article II, Section 1:

  

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

AM:  Trump meets all of these criteria.  But, remember:  there was some question as to whether his predecessor met the “natural born” criterion.  Those who were or are skeptical about the natural born status—except, that is, Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff that introduced this as a possible issue during the 2008 presidential campaign—are derided as “birthers” . . . conspiracy theorists, even though some would argue that there is some evidence to support the theory.  For instance, Obama has gone to great lengths to seal certain records (e.g., administrative records at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard) that could assuage these concerns, if he were natural born.  Further, as proof of birth, the Obama campaign circulated a certificate of live birth that is normally issued for those individuals born to US citizens outside of the State of Hawaii.  Then, after pressure from Trump, Obama finally released a so-called long form birth certificate.  Yet, forensic investigations (see also here) into this form revealed serious issues—that is, a forged certificate.

Old Gadfly:  Assuming the “natural born” criterion is not an issue for either Obama or Trump, what do you think the left means when they say Trump is not qualified?

AM:  Before we dig into an answer to your question, I want to point out that one of the Texan delegates to the Electoral College has publicly declared he will become one of the few “faithless electors” in our nation’s history because he believes Trump is not qualified.

IM:  I recall that the announcement by this faithless elector, Christopher Suprun, was through the New York Times.  This was part of the swarming activity by Hollywood dupes and media mimickers related to convincing at least 37 electors not to vote for Trump.  Unfortunately, as we wade through all the “fake news,” generated by the left, there is little fanfare that Suprun has been completely discredited by, among other things, stolen valor (see here and here).

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let’s get back to the qualification question.

AM:  I have heard and read that Trump lacks policy experience.

IM:  I agree.  The claim is that since Trump has never served in a government capacity, he has no expertise on policy matters, whether domestic or foreign.

Old Gadfly:  What is policy?  People throw that term around all the time without defining it.

IM:  A dictionary definition states that policy is:  “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.”  So, here we are talking about government policy.

Old Gadfly:  Good.  Now, from what is a course or principle of action derived?

AM:  Good question.  The context is political, in that we chose a Party candidate over another based upon their platforms.

Old Gadfly:  OK . . . continue.

AM:  The platforms represent values.  For instance, the progressive Democrat believes in freedom, opportunity, responsibility, and cooperation.  Progressives believe these values can only be enhanced by a large, central government and its central planners (congruent with socialism).  For a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of these values from a progressive perspective, see here.  On the other hand, the conservative Republican believes in respect for human life, individual liberty, limited government, a strong defense, and free enterprise.  For a more detailed explanation, see here.  Here is another source that explains how progressive and conservative values shape policy (here is another good source). Finally, here is an article that explains why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals (and progressives).

IM:  Speaking of political perspectives and happiness, I recently read an interesting article by a university professor.  Here is a quote from her article:

I have long appreciated the optimism about human progress that is a key ideal of liberalism (think of the term “progressive”). While I still embrace this view, I wonder if conservative ideals are more natural ideals. That is, does human nature, as it emerged under the pressures of natural selection of our small-group-living ancestors, include the urge to curtail individual expression, enforce authority, and hoard resources for the in-group? Compared to liberals, social conservatives may well be living lives that are more similar to what humans have lived for tens of thousands of years. And if so, is their more natural mind-set the reason that conservatives are, at least according to surveys, often happier than liberals?

Old Gadfly:  Good points.  So, when we hear the left accusing Trump of not being qualified, what we’re being told is that anticipated policy stemming from a Trump administration will reflect values that are contrary to the left’s.  Do you agree?

IM:  Absolutely.  For starters, here are examples of what the left is angry about:

·         Repealing Obamacare and reducing taxes is a rejection of the Marxist values called redistribution of wealth and fear from want.  

·         Reducing the size of government in terms of federal regulations by an unelected bureaucracy is a rejection of the value of a large, centralized government. 

·         Installing retired general officers as Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security promotes a Constitutional government that is strong on defense and the safety of America and assumes a larger leadership role in the international system, contrary to the feckless “lead from behind” posture over the past eight years.

·         Installing business men and women in various positions such as Secretary of State and Commerce recognizes the role healthy free enterprise-oriented economies play in the globalized international economy.  This is contrary to the notion that government experts know better than the players actually involved in voluntary free exchange of value and Hayek’s concept of spontaneous order and prosperity.  After all, Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated and look at how the stock market responded.

·         Building a wall and enforcing immigration laws enfranchises the individual liberty of those citizens who exercise responsibility through the rule of law.  This negates the exploitation opportunities the left has enjoyed through identity politics and political correctness.

AM:  Given all the excuses that Hillary and her campaign surrogates are giving for her loss, there is no doubt that they lack the capacity to reflect on the difference in political values in light of what the American idea is all about, how it led to the greatest prosperity in the history of humankind, and why so many want to migrate (legally and illegally) to America.  More sadly, progressives must lie and deceive in order to dupe those who choose to follow.  Among the many lies told by Obama at his last press conference, the one that many saw through—justifying their vote for Trump—was about all the jobs created.  The most important indicator of job growth is the labor participation rate; and it is the lowest since the 1970s.

IM:  Speaking of dupes, here is what Hoover said in his 1958 book, Masters of Deceit:

What lesson can we as a society learn from the Party’s methods of recruitment?  Most important, I think, is to realize the Communist Party is attempting to exploit the rise of materialism, irreligion, and lack of faith in our society.  In an era when moral standards have been lowered, when family life has been disrupted, when crime and juvenile delinquency rates are high, communists have tried to set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women.  They have, in truth, tried to “steal” the nobility, the fervor, the enthusiasm of a free government under God (pp. 107-108).

Old Gadfly:  Thus, concerns about policy are more about the difference in political values.  Certainly Obama’s experience as a community organizer, one-term state senator, a nearly two-year US Senator provided no experience for the type of policy expected at the national level.   Yet, to this day, he enjoys high popularity ratings, despite a mess he leaves behind.  Perhaps Obama’s greatest achievement is the perception of presidential demeanor.  I suspect many on the left see this as an important qualification.  Is demeanor a qualification?

IM:  Comments made on the Access Hollywood bus rankled a lot of folks as conduct unbecoming an American president.

Old Gadfly:  Well?  Are they wrong?

AM:  Trump did not deny the comments, and he apologized for them.  Trump may come across as crass to those on the left, but he comes across as a hero for those who are sick and tired of political correctness.  He comes across as authentic and sincere.

Old Gadfly:  Do you believe Trump followers prefer the naked truth as opposed to a facade?

IM:  I believe good old American patriots who feel good about America and what it stands for represent manly men and womanly women:  those who have avoided or escaped conditioning by the progressive, secular humanist conditioners.

AM:  Those on the left either favored an open socialist, who (in the words of Hoover) “set forth a goal—dressed in attractive phrases—that would captivate the longings and hopes of men and women”; or another socialist in progressive clothing who presented an image of presidential demeanor with actual policy experience.  Those so duped on the left had no interest in the failed policies (Middle East, Libya, Russia, etc.) or corruption associated with illegal email servers and the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.

AM:  There is no facade with Trump.  What you see is what you get—like most ordinary Americans who believe that all men and women are equal; and who should not be ashamed that they happen to be white or male, a police officer, or a Christian baker that believes in traditional marriage.

IM:  Meanwhile, Hillary and her surrogates will continue to seek ways to make Trump’s presidency illegitimate and to demean, with great contempt, those who share Trump’s values.

Old Gadfly:  With a left-leaning press, many can understand why Trump resorts to his Twitter account.  This is about the only way he can control his own narrative to counter the distorted caricature being painted by his political opponents.  Time will tell whether enough Americans want to preserve our Constitutional Republic, overcome the insidious forces of socialism, and make America great again.