Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where Does a Patriot Turn in 2016?
The Democratic Party’s national convention is attempting to lay claim to the patriot mantle. Yet the party is not quite there. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was heckled with chants of “no more war.” The Code Pink wing lost the nomination this year, but it won the platform, and may yet win it all in the next cycle.
President Obama seeded his own speech with patriotic grace notes and, while he recoils from Trump, his horror at Trump’s style seemingly blinds him to their similarities. On substance, they are more alike than not. This shouldn’t be shocking, considering that Trump has been a Democrat for most of his life. What is stunning is the degree to which so many patriots, whose eyes water at the flag and the anthem, imagine that Trump is a patriot in the same mold.
Obama reproached the Republican nominee for wanting to “turn away from the rest of the world.” But that’s Obama’s view too. He’s happier to be a follower than a world leader, never more gratified than when the U.S. is more modest. When asked why he failed to give even rhetorical/moral support to the millions of Iranians in the streets during the abortive “Green Revolution,” his administration explained that the U.S. was tainted by its history, and any expression from us would have backfired.
His refusal to help the suffering people of Syria – failing even to provide a safe haven for refugees, which has had radiating consequences for Europe’s stability and security — was grounded in the same perspective, that American power was blundering when it was not downright imperialistic. When he did intervene, as in Afghanistan, it was feckless. In Libya, he played second fiddle to European powers, which seems more morally acceptable to progressives.
Trump thunders that “We don’t win anymore” (he’s referring to trade, which is completely wrong) and bristled (rightly in this instance) at the humiliation of our sailors at the hands of the Iranians in January. But, like Obama on steroids, he takes a dim view of America’s moral standing.
When he was questioned about his warm endorsements of Vladimir Putin and reminded that Putin has killed quite a few critics, Trump shrugged “We do a lot of killing in this country too.” That’s an extraordinary calumny, implying not the indisputable fact that we have too many violent deaths in America, but that, like Russia, our government engages in targeted assassinations of political opponents. Here, Trump leaves Obama behind altogether.
Asked about the attempted coup in Turkey, Trump’s tropism toward tyrants was manifest. He praised Erdoğan’s success in thwarting the coup, and when asked about Erdoğan’s crackdown on thousands of journalists, educators, judges, civil servants, and others, Trump was unmoved. “I think right now when it comes to civil liberties, our country has a lot of problems.” He mentioned Ferguson, and Baltimore, and police being killed, and offered this: “When the world looks at how bad the United States is, and then we go and talk about civil liberties, I don’t think we’re a very good messenger.”
Trump misses the most crucial fact about Turkey: The thwarted coup may have empowered Erdoğan to take one of the world’s most advanced Muslim nations, a NATO ally, down the path of Iran. But also consider his view of America. Is that how a patriot thinks? We lack the moral standing to criticize other nations on human rights?
Trump has famously praised Saddam Hussein (“At least he killed terrorists” – no, the opposite), China’s communist bosses who mowed down protesters in Tiananmen Square (“They put it down with strength”), and even Kim Jong-un, (“You got to give him credit. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. This guy doesn’t play games.”)
But Trump has reserved his greatest affection for Vladimir Putin. Yes, George W. Bush praised Putin (once), but he wised up. Yes, Obama attempted to “reset” relations (less explicable) but he was forced to backtrack when Putin snatched Crimea, reintroduced Russia’s military directly into Syria, and made proxy war on Ukraine.
Trump is on notice about all of that and much more. It is common knowledge (which is not to say Trump knows it) that Putin’s opponents tend to die by poison and other methods beloved of the KGB; that state controlled Russian media ceaselessly incite America hatred, that Russian internet trolls seek to destabilize democratic governments in Europe and quite likely here; that Putin sides with Iran, Syria’s Assad (a genocidal dictator), and Hezbollah, and that Putin, having strangled civil society and freedom in Russia, seeks to recapture the lost glory of the Soviet empire. Yet Trump bats his eyes at Putin like a schoolgirl with a crush.
Part of Trump’s appeal is chauvinism — a strutting sort of nationalist appeal (unsupported by anything approaching policy ideas). It’s more than odd then that his followers are unshaken by his willingness to be Putin’s poodle.
Published in Foreign Policy
But consider the alternative. There is NO way of keeping “in line” Mme. HIllary. She will be surrounded by a trusted and veteran corps of schemers and planners who will enable her to override the Constitution in any way desired. Her election will mean the triumph of the Bolsheviks. I hold to the opinion that Mr. Trump is a less competent authoritarian.
Wow, is that an endorsement, or what!?
Mr. Lileks, I am not sure that we are at odds over this point. My own appreciation of our situation is that the Republican Party is in desperate trouble and may not emerge from this election intact; BUT, the choice that we have for president is no choice at all.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men were unable to deny Mr. Trump the nomination; but Mme. Hillary is so much worse than he that I see no alternative to supporting Mr. Trump. My hope is that Congress can thwart or modify his plans and that the final steps toward authoritarianism that surely will be taken by the Democrats can be forestalled for at least another election or two.
Ergo, tear him up; but wait until after he is elected.
No, just an observation.
I am wary of Mr Trump, but I am very fearful of Mme. Hillary. I know where she will take us: remember always her original medical takeover plan, the work of a true Bolshevik . That is the goal she seeks.
Mr. Trump, for all his bombast has not yet proven to be a true Fascist. And, he is likely to face opposition quite different from and perhaps more effective than any that she will encounter.
I think a lot will depend on what happens in Congress. If somehow the Dems were to sweep the Senate and take the House, then we will experience another ’93-’94 and ’09-’10 scenario where the Progressives run wild and see what they can grab. The GOP has to defend more seats this year, but it looks like they might hold on. I just don’t see a wave year that gives the Dems 40 House seats.
In fact, because both Clinton and Trump are so distrusted and unpredictable, it might be a good year for down ballot Republicans because (a) a desire for status quo, and (b) splitting the ticket (if the best thing you can say about Trump is that he is not Hillary, then you also have to figure out which party you want to control Congress in order to counter him). I don’t see a sweep of populist GOP candidates; it looks like the same crowd of conservatives for the most part.
If its ends up being Clinton in the White House and the GOP controlling the Congress, then at one end of options you get a repeat of the 1990s and at the other end the current, grinding status quo gridlock. I would be more than happy for a GOP Senate to refuse to accept the nomination of a Justice and leave the Supreme Court at 8 for a full term. Of course she will bury America in red tape out of the bureaucracies like Barry is doing now.
If you would like to see the US reform its institutions, shake off the rust, and get its house in order, you’re just going to have to wait to 2020.
IDK. Is “one of the very worst people in America” invested in any way in the electoral politics of the last 25-30 years? And I tend to think it’s a very bad idea to underestimate your own side’s desire to have someone bully the rest of society on their behalf.
I live in Colorado, a state notorious for its quirky swinginess. One of the things I’ve noticed so far is that the political ads have been much fewer on the ground than this time in 2012, or even in 2014. One wonders whether the 24/7 Trump free media bonanza is a means of supressing political ad spending. One further wonders whether or not that’s a blessing in disguise for whomever is an incumbent this year, Dem or GOP.
It’s a reason to vote against the more competent authoritarian. I’ll pick Stupid over Evil every time. And I’d rather have a Stupid Evil than a Smart Evil in any political office.
Government outside of its limits is not our friend. Wouldn’t you rather have a stupid enemy?
Without wanting to engage Godwin’s Rule, Hitler was a stupid enemy. Saddam Hussein was a stupid enemy. The problem is that stupid enemies can be awfully dangerous in their own right and cause a lot of damage. That’s one reason for a lot of trepidation about Trump. Our hope is that he causes less damage or damage that is easier to repair. That’s pretty thin gruel.
Strategically in an iterative prisoners dilemma the optimal strategy is to retaliate then forgive. There has to be blood, or else you have the least optimal strategy.