Purification

by

Gadfly

           Democrats are leading the campaign to purify America of its sin of slavery.  They support the removal of confederate statues and renaming military bases currently bearing names of confederate military leaders.  Speaker of the House Pelosi has even removed three portraits of former Speakers of the House who were members of Confederate States.

           As part of the Democrat campaign, is it not ironic that in one of their publicity stunts, Pelosi and fellow Democrats took a knee in the Nation’s Capitol while wearing the Ghana Kente cloth?  Affluent Ghanaians were influential in selling their fellow countrymen in the European slave trade.  Was it not hypocritical for Democrats to be associated with a symbol of a people that advanced and profited from slavery?  As an example of the leftist cabal on advancing the progressive Democrat narrative, see this twisted and convoluted explanation by PolitiFact who has partnered with Facebook to filter (censor) information that is contrary to their ideology.

Where will the campaign end?  If allowed to run its full course, it will require eradicating our current political system of the Democrat Party and any visible historical symbols of the Democrat Party throughout America’s history—to include the portrait of Nancy Pelosi.

 

           Does this assertion sound bizarre?

           Think about it.  As an institution, slavery required political justification.  This involved not only Democrats from Confederate States but support from Democrats in Northern States as well.  The institution of slavery was the reason the Republican Party was formed.  Lincoln and fellow Republicans abhorred slavery so much, they were willing to sacrifice well over 600,000 Americans at the altar of accountability and justice.

           Despite the sacrifice of nearly 10% of America’s population at the time and the legal termination of the institution of slavery, Democrats resisted post-Civil War efforts to fully integrate former slaves and all blacks into America’s Republic.  The KKK and Jim Crow laws were Democrat creations.  Today’s Democrat-backed KKK is Antifa and other well-funded organizations set on instituting a new form of political slavery—complete acquiescence to the progressive Democrat Party.

           The long, overdue “conversation on racism,” if engaged by reasoned minds, will shine a light on the modern slavery that currently exists in America (the welfare state and the inner-city plantations).  Starting with education, Democrats have controlled the education of Americans that has been very successful in indoctrinating at least two generations of progressives (Marxist socialists in disguise), who see the world through a normative lens.

 

What does a “normative lens” mean?  Progressives see the world the way it ought to be and set out to make it so: safe from climate change and the immoral beliefs of anyone who is not a progressive Democrat through militant social justice warriors.  As America’s intelligentsia, they have a moral obligation to create other ordinary Americans in their image.

           Does this claim also sound bizarre?

           Perhaps, arguably, as the central organizing personality in this progressive movement, former President Obama (who miraculously survived “systemic racism”[1] to serve two full terms as President of the United States of America) admitted his “intelligentsia” proclivity on March 25, 2018 at a conference in Japan (part of an Asia-Pacific trip that also included stops in Singapore, New Zealand and Australia—strong evidence of a globalist perspective).  He was candid about his intellectual and moral superiority when he said (quoting from CNN):

"After I left office, what I realized is that the Obama Foundation could potentially create a platform for young, up-and-coming leaders, both in the United States and all around the world to come together, meet together, create a digital platform where they could exchange information," Obama said.

"If I could do that effectively, then I would create a hundred, or a thousand, or a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas," he added (my bold italics).

           Obama’s body language speaks volumes about his intellectual and moral superiority as in this photograph from a CNN article:

In comparing Obama to Russia’s V. I. Lenin in my article, “Socialist Infiltration of America,” I said:

 

Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.  That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today).  Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.

           Today, Democrats, who embrace progressivism and its Marxist philosophy, sacrifice a formerly liberal[2] America to the altar of racism.  Moreover, Democrats and their progressive demagogues are creating racism (anti-white, anti-cop, anti-anything that is not “Black Lives Matter”) in their alleged campaign to eliminate racism.  This is very consistent with “Leninthink.”  Orwell understood this so well that his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, painted a reality we see playing out on our television screens.  Walter Cronkite predicted how this might turn out in a 1983 preface to an edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four:

If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.

Orwell drew upon the technology (and perhaps some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his picture of 1984.  But it was not a work of science fiction he was writing.  It was a novelistic essay on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how those who seek it or seek to keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything in its name.

1984 is an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to amass.  That warning vibrates powerfully when we allow ourselves to sit still and think carefully about orbiting satellites that can read the license plates in a parking lot and computers that can tap into thousands of telephone calls and telex transmissions at once and computers that can do our banking and purchasing, can watch the house and tell a monitoring station what television program we are watching and how many people there are in the room.  We think of Orwell when we read of scientists who believe they have located in the human brain the seats of behavioral emotions like aggression, or learn more about the vast potential of genetic engineering.

And we hear echoes of that warning chord in the constant demand for greater security and comfort, for less risk in our societies.  We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression, that individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost.

Critics and scholars may argue quite legitimately about the particular literary merits of 1984.  But none can deny its power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, nor the power of its admonitions . . . a power that seems to grow rather than lessen with the passage of time.  It has been said that 1984 fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning—Orwell’s terrible vision has been averted.  Well, that kind of self-congratulation is, to say the least, premature.  1984 may not arrive on time, but there’s always 1985.

Still, the warning has been effective; and every time we use one of those catch phrases . . . recognize Big Brother in someone, see a 1984 in our future . . . notice something Orwellian . . . we are listening to that warning again (my bold italics).

Fellow Americans, we are well beyond a warning.  The dangers of Nineteen Eighty-Four are here.  Prayer may inspire us for strength and courage that are so necessary in confronting it.  Prayer is badly needed to notice something Orwellian and to fight it with all our strength. Let us purify ourselves against the rot (evil) that has infected our society.

---

[1] The new Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force also somehow survived systemic racism.  Frederick Douglass survived actual slavery and systemic racism, but rose above these conditions to be a staunch advocate for Americanism.  America’s potential for transcendence is inhibited by today’s comforted bigots (or Copernican Drones) who advance the notion of systemic racism for political power.

[2] Liberal implies a belief in liberalism.  Wikipedia presents a fairly accurate description of the values of liberalism.  “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.”  Liberals among America’s Founders also believed in natural rights—the inalienable rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  As the political philosopher and former atheist Gerhardt Niemeyer has argued, natural rights is a critical concept in understanding political and social order and can only be understood within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Noble Lies

by

Gadfly

In his The Road to Serfdom chapter, “The End of Truth,” F. A. Hayek explains how totalitarian leaders create “myth” to justify action.  For example,

The totalitarian leader may be guided merely by an instinctive dislike of the state of things he has found and a desire to create a new hierarchical order which conforms better to his conception of merit; he may merely know that he dislikes Jews who seemed to be so successful in an order which did not provide a satisfactory place for him, and that he loves and admires the tall blond man, the “aristocratic” figure of the novels of his youth. So he will readily embrace theories which seem to provide a rational justification for the prejudices which he shares with many of his fellows (bold italics added for emphasis, p. 173).

Five days before presidential elections in November 2007, Barack Obama announced “We are five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America.”  He explicitly promised new policies to create a new hierarchical order.  He was explicit about more aggressively taxing the top 1% of income earners in America because there was no satisfactory place for them in his vision of America.

We see now the significant effect narratives (novels or otherwise) have had on our youth when a presumably innocent and still naïve teenager can get an international platform to pontificate about the existential crisis of climate change.  She has an enthusiastic choir that not only spontaneously reacts to and rejects opposing arguments, they want to punish nonbelievers.

  

Complementing this phenomenon are prejudicial theories that have so painfully afflicted so many fellow travelers.  Universities now teach, as if scientific fact, the injustice of privileged versus oppressed classes (see Vanderbilt University handout here and Scripps College presentation here).  As a Christian, traditionally married, father, senior, white male, I am privileged (thus an oppressor) in at least seven ways:  (1) a Christian, (2) a heterosexual, (3) a believer in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, (4) a prolife advocate, (5) who is old, (6) white, and (7) male.  I had no choice in three of these circumstances and a choice in four.  The crime in my choices is that they represent values that are contrary to the progressive left; therefore, not only are they wrong, they are immoral.  Leading progressive University of California-Berkeley Professor George Lakoff argues for such a conclusion in his book, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  But Lakoff goes beyond mere analysis and pseudoscience in advancing his prejudices regarding political values.  He developed a handbook, Thinking Points, to train and guide progressives to in turn shape the masses through manipulative narratives and story-telling.

  

Has it worked?  Absolutely.

  

In Jeffrey Feldman’s book, Framing the Debate, George Lakoff authored the introduction.  Here is what Lakoff said:

For most of the past forty years, conservatives have had a clear field, as progressives did little or nothing to counter the ongoing conservative framing of issues.  That began to turn around in 2004, with the work of the Rockridge Institute and the publication of Don’t Think of an Elephant! and has continued with the publication of Thinking Points, Rockridge’s handbook for progressives.  Progressives throughout America have begun the reframing process and it showed in the 2006 election (p. xii).

What are key implications from this short quote?

1.               The difference between conservatives and progressives (liberals) in the forty year period was the differences in their ideas regarding governance and political values, not in the “framing” of issues.  This difference has been magnified now during the Trump administration and it represents what Professor Victor Davis Hanson describes in a recent eBook, Dueling Populisms.  According to Hanson, “Trump has revived the ancient tension between urban radicals who seek equality and rural conservatives who seek liberty.” 

2.              The Rockridge Institute, a 501c3 claiming to be nonpartisan, was essentially one person—George Lakoff.

3.              The books were both authored by George Lakoff.

4.              In 2006, George W. Bush was in his second term.  When 9-11 took place in his first term, Democrats joined Republicans in supporting Bush’s response.  His approval rating reached 90%.  Recognizing no political capital in supporting a successful Bush agenda, Democrats turned against him and campaigned vigorously through Lakoff-style narratives in the media (the Democrat agenda was arguably focused on pollical power, not what was good for America or the free world).  In 2007, Democrats took command of both houses of Congress and laid the groundwork and sustained their momentum in getting Obama elected President in 2008.

  

More recently, Democrats repeated their “framing” to achieve victory in the House in the 2018 midterm elections.  They did this primarily by falsely telling voters Republicans wanted to take away medical insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions while trying to remove a duly elected Republican president through a concerted false narrative campaign.  Lee Smith’s book, The Plot Against the President, should scare the s*** out of every law-abiding, truth loving American. Of course, as I have previously written, the Communist Party USA took credit for generating 12 million more votes for Democrat House races and 11 million more for Democrat Senate races.

Perhaps the best Lakoff-style framing was most recently demonstrated by Congressman Adam Schiff.  I think most objective observers were not only shocked, but terribly disappointed, by his theatrics during a public hearing on September 25, 2019.  Schiff blatantly and grossly distorted the conversation between President Trump and the newly elected President of Ukraine that took place on July 25, 2019.  In his Committee report, “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report,” dated December 2019, Schiff proclaimed

Our investigation determined that this telephone call was neither the start nor the end of President Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for his personal gain.  Rather, it was a dramatic crescendo within a months-long campaign driven by President Trump in which senior U.S. officials, including the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Acting Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Energy, and others were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the President (p. 9).

  

What was the “personal political benefit”?  In Adam Schiff’s words, “dirt on a political opponent” (i.e., Joe Biden).  Nowhere in the telephone transcript is this made known, explicitly or implicitly.  The day before the call, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller had testified before Congress regarding the Mueller Report.  It did not produce any smoking guns for Democrats in their pursuit of “dirt” on President Trump.  After over three years of being under a spotlight for conspiracy theories about collusion and obstruction, President Trump had every right, personally and especially constitutionally, to get to the bottom of the conspiracy against him.

According to Democrats, Biden’s presidential candidacy became a shield against any investigations, even though he is widely known to have bribed the Ukrainian government to the tune of $1 billion to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that employed his son.  President Trump was denied any such shield during his candidacy, transition, and incumbency.

Lakoff and fellow progressives (i.e., the Democrat Party) strongly believe in “framing” issues.  From their perspective, the masses are not smart enough to weigh the merits of ideas and policy proposals.  This notion shines a light on the real issue:  the nature of governance.  The left believes in rule by men:  governments (i.e., ruling elite or central planners) govern the masses.  The right (i.e., the Republican Party) believes in the rule of law:  we the people establish governments and delegate enumerated powers to protect our inalienable rights.  The sovereign is “we the people.”  Governments are their instrument in protecting institutions (i.e., “rules of the game”) established to protect our God-given rights.

The left’s moral justification for its “framing” of issues takes on the force of a doctrine.  In F. A. Hayek’s chapter, “The End of Truth,” he explained

The need for such official doctrines as an instrument of directing and rallying the efforts of the people has been clearly foreseen by the various theoreticians of the totalitarian system.  Plato’s “noble lies” . . . serve the same purpose as the racial doctrine of the Nazis or the theory of the corporative state of Mussolini.  They are all necessarily based on particular views about facts which are then elaborated into scientific theories in order to justify a preconceived opinion (p. 174).

  

While Hayek’s use of Plato’s “noble lies” gets an important point across about shaping public sentiment, there is a deeper distinction to be made about lies and doctrines.

  

Simon Fraser University Professor Christopher Morrissey teaches philosophy, Greek, and Latin.  At Voegelinview.com, he recently posted an article,  “The Truth About Plato’s ‘Noble Lie’.”  Morrissey explains that the mainstream understanding of the “noble lie” concept is incorrect.  A proper translation of the original Greek text in Plato’s Republic includes “noble” but not “lies.”  Over the years, “lies” has been inferred as the subject.  Morrissey also argues that an understanding of the context is critically important.  As Plato is putting words in Socrates’ mouth, Socrates is attempting to explain that government guardians will use untruths, even lies, in advancing their agendas, and that it would be better to advance doctrine that represents the truth and wisdom of tradition.  In other words, Socrates argued for noble doctrine (based on truth and wisdom, not untruthful framing) in advancing political agendas.  As we know, the government guardians rejected Socrates’ appeal for noble doctrine, and he was put to death.

  

The left wants Americans to believe President Trump is a liar.  They have not ceased their efforts to politically kill him.  According to them (in particular, I think of The New York Times’ David Leonhardt), Trump not only tells lies but countless “ignoble lies.”

  

Aside from the tremendous volume of noise from a concerted effort by the leftist mainstream media, many Americans can appreciate the real signal at play, mostly through President Trump’s Tweets and a small number of credible news sources.

  

Who are we to believe?  What are we to believe?  In my opinion, we should believe the person who advances a populism that reflects the original idea of our Constitutional Republic.  Democrats have cited our Founders a lot lately even though their efforts are contrary to what the Founders intended.  Democrats argue for a populism of urban radicals seeking equality.  President Trump, on behalf of conservative Republicans, speaks for the populism of rural conservatives who seek liberty, which is most consistent with our Founder’s vision for a Constitutional Republic.  Moreover, President Trump champions liberty for all, rural and urban.

  

Believe it or not, like it or not, President Trump speaks noble doctrine.

Bearing False Witness

by

Gadfly

           In the Bible, there are only ten commandments.  One of them commands against bearing false witness.  To most of us, this means we shall not lie—that is, “thou shall not” say something we clearly know to be false or not completely true as in quibbling.  According to the prophet Jeremiah, the lack of truthfulness is a far more egregious offense when it is a shepherd, as in kings and princes: “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! Saith the LORD” (23:1 [KJV]).


           Of all the positive and healing themes that could have been presented, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton chose to inject false witness during her eulogy at the late Congressman Elijah Cummings’ funeral this past Friday (October 25, 2019).  In particular, she invoked the Biblical prophet Elijah, whose name means “My Lord is my God.”  Then she said, “Like the prophet, our Elijah could call down fire from heaven.” She followed this with: “Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.”  Clearly, the latter was an implied reference to President and Mrs. Trump.  Clinton’s clever political shot trivialized the solemnity of an event to honor Cummings and turned Cummings into an instrument in advancing her own political ambitions.


           Included in the cohort of eulogists were former Presidents Clinton and Obama.  Both made innuendoes impugning President Trump for dishonorable behavior in comparison with the honorable Cummings.  So, it was somewhat ironical to find this Sunday’s liturgy included a gospel from Luke 18: 9-14.  Jesus did not find the Pharisee’s self-righteousness to be more honorable than the tax collector.


           There seemed to be no reference to Trump’s Twitter insult about Cummings’ Baltimore.  If so, just as well, because Cummings’ very public verbal bludgeoning of a Trump Acting Homeland Security Secretary regarding alleged conditions at the southern border is what prompted Trump’s twitter insult; more so, it was also in defense of the Acting Secretary.  Ironically, another liturgical reading on Sunday was from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18.  Unlike Paul who was persecuted for his evangelism, Trump did not abandon the Secretary; he was there to provide defense for another American evangelizing the constitutional obligation to enforce the rule of law.


           Trump has endured over three years of false witness.  Phase I pre-election machinations failed.  Phase II failed to prevent Trump’s inauguration. Phase III, in the form of the Mueller investigation, failed to remove the President; but achieved a lot of collateral damage to those in Trump’s political orbit.  Now, Phase IV is an impeachment attempt.  Since Congressman Schiff’s Star Chamber leaks very selective bits of information to shape the current narrative, here is an excellent article that provides important context related to the real story.  Sadly, much of what the left falsely accuses Trump of committing, took place in the Obama Administration and by others within the leftist cabal.


           One of the left’s most important weapons in bearing false witness is propaganda in order to influence public sentiment among our nation’s sheep.  I provided such a case in blog articles going into the 2012 presidential campaign (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and in chapters 7 through 12 of my book, The 2012 Political Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly.


           Today, David Leonhardt of The New York Times not only acknowledges but champions the importance of swaying public sentiment to advance impeachment and eventual removal of President Trump.  In the same edition, there is this headline on the front page above the fold: “Who Is Vindman?  A Ukrainian Refugee Who Rose to the White House.”  Vindman is U.S. Army Alexander Vindman currently serving on the National Security Council.
  

Ironically, in 1994, when I was a student at the Air War College, I attended a course on Soviet Studies.  One of my classmates in the course was a lieutenant colonel from Ukraine.  Understanding the complexities of this region, the professor surprisingly put the Ukrainian officer on the spot when he asked, “If Russia invades Ukraine, will you fight for the defense of Ukraine?”  The answer was cryptic but very clear.  He said, “My father is from Ukraine, my mother from Russia.  I have many aunts and uncles and cousins in Russia and Ukraine.”  In other words, he was not certain to which country he would be loyal.  The same question needs to be asked of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.  In this case, he appears to favor Ukraine over the United States.

           To advance true witness, it might be helpful to ponder two questions about President Donald Trump.
  

First, is Trump a man of good character?
  

Being honest, nice, nuanced, polished, glib, humble, and so forth can be helpful in getting along with others.  These traits certainly make one “likeable.”  But these traits are not virtues.  Cardinal virtues include fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice.  Of these four virtues, Trump clearly demonstrates fortitude.  He is standing firm in fulfilling promises made during the presidential campaign despite withering resistance from a leftist House of Representatives, Never-Trumpers, and mainstream media.

  

Some would argue that Trump’s Twitter practice is intemperate.  While the practice is certainly unprecedented, so is the magnitude and ubiquitousness of leftist political bias of America’s news sources.  The hatred and contempt toward Trump may also reveal fear of a political order and its corresponding values that are not consistent with the left’s progressive ideology.  Thus, Trump’s persistence in responding to attacks from a wide range of sources may be based on the virtues of wisdom and justice, both of which are dependent upon truth.  And while Trump is well known for his blunt honesty (falsely alleged to be racism by the left) his knack for embellishment and exaggeration are important techniques for disrupting ideological paradigms.  This is how Trump controls his agenda, while the resistance tries to control the narrative.  Trump’s followers pay less attention to what is said and more to what is being done.

Winston Churchill was not unlike Trump in his crassness.  Although Trump does not consume alcoholic beverages (evidence of temperance), Churchill did.  In explaining the importance of humor, especially anecdotes in speeches, James Hume, a presidential speech writer, claimed “I relate Churchill’s famous encounter with the two-hundred pound Bessie Braddock in 1955.  Bessie in her fishmonger voice said to Churchill, ‘Winston, you are drunk.’  And Churchill replied, ‘Bessie, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober” (cited in Hume’s book, The Sir Winston Method:  The Five Secrets of Speaking the Language of Leadership, p. 138).  Resisting strong and withering political resistance, Churchill had a vision for his nation’s survival.  Trump does as well.

        

Second, how might Trump be recognized as a legitimate President by the left?
  

The only way for Trump to be accepted as a legitimate President would be to totally capitulate to the left’s progressive agenda, which would betray the campaign promises that got him elected.  This would violate the very essence of virtue because Trump would need to sell his soul to remain in office.

  

Fortunately, Trump has the fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice to resist this pressure.  He seeks justice for those in our nation that scattered sheep in the pursuit of power.  Again, from Jeremiah 23: 31-32 (KJV): “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.  Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them:  therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.”

  

Meanwhile, Trump remains loyal to the idea of America and to those who elected him while waging existential battle with those who bear false witness.  Soon, truth will emerge, and justice will prevail “on earth as it is in heaven.”

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.”